The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Posts 51 to 75 of 118
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesrohr1
    Additionally, Jazz culture is such that unless you can show that you have done the work, you are NOT a Jazz musician. It's set up to be a fairly exclusive club from the get-go.
    No, you just need to have some friends around you who are always ready to congratulate you, the more you play, better you seem to be. You just need a start, you play something, you are not a virtuoso but people trust you because you know what to do, you accept sometimes mediocrity and try to fix the problem. There will always be someone who will support you, always someone but never yourself. If you're in love with yourself and think you are the best or a phenomenon and you are always giving advice "you should", "I'd rather you play", "stop it"...
    Be a diva, be a rocker.
    No, I'm kidding.

    But you're not wrong, people who play jazz or pretend playing jazz (that's my case) are always looking for something, they get complicated things and go back to simple things then take another direction, they make, they destroy, go further then back, learn something then surrender, get something they didn't expected, is it new ? No, it's a cliché... Need some ? Let's find oneself... it doesn't sound like the others want... oh ? I don't have the basic things...

    A good thing : everyone can take a place...

    Just about guitarists...

    Charlie Byrd, Mike Stern, Jim Hall, Lenny Breau, John Scofield, Joe Pass...
    Every kind of style, playing, concept, personality...

    The best musicians are always intimated when they listen to another musician and has to play with him or after him.

    One day Art Pepper met Sonny Stitt during a jam session, both were intimated, different styles.

    One day Paul Desmond said he was the slowest saxophonist in the World but he was someone, he had his thing.
    Last edited by Lionelsax; 02-23-2019 at 01:43 AM.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    i think a lot of the "jazz is hard/jazz requires theory" thing stems from people not realising they are also crap at rock and blues.

    I bet loads of people think "twiddle around in this pentatonic here and there" and I am playing the blues. But they sound garbage, and dont realise what makes a good player sound like they are playing the blues (e.g through right notes collections at the right time, and phrasing)

    When they try and play jazz they sound even worse because the noodling pentatonic approach wont get them close enough to what the estimate jazz to be and this leads them to think their theory is letting them down - that they arent finding the right notes somehow.

    The lack of theory probably IS letting them down, but a good ear player can get pretty far with pentatonics and a few choice notes too.

    For me anyway, facing jazz head on was about throwing out the noodler in me and acknowledging that what I was doing, wasn't really music to anyone but me. For many learning jazz guitar is just learning MUSIC from scratch. many hobby guitarists (self included) and many of my friends, play for years without thinking of it musically.

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by basinstreet
    i think a lot of the "jazz is hard/jazz requires theory" thing stems from people not realising they are also crap at rock and blues.
    Theory is just there to make you understand what you can't hear.
    Think about Babik Reinhardt, he didn't know anything about theory but heard everything because his ear was his only tool, for sure he had been born in a musical environment and for sure he was gifted.
    If you add theory to such people, it makes guys like Boulou and Elios Ferré.

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rlrhett
    Joe (or anyone):

    Are there young rock players who I should be listening to? John Mayer is refreshingly competent instrumentalist at a time when pop artist tend to be mostly dancers with passable singing voices performing music written by professional composers and producers. But John M doesn’t surprise me with his inventiveness (like Julian L) or wow me with his technique (like Pasquale G).

    I don’t mean that in an angry old man way. I would love to be turned on to exciting new players. I think I’ve gravitated to jazz because rock guitar felt so stilted and preserved in amber. Weirdly rock feels like its gone backwards where Gilad H, Pasquale G, Julian L, et al, are making fresh contributions.

    Whenever I see live music it is usually some grey haired white guy trying to sound like one of the Kings. Hendrix, Page, and even Gilmore were much more avant-garde than what I hear out today. I would love to hear rock players as exciting as the young jazz players (or bluegrass players, for that matter).

    Suggestions?

    (PS sorry for the highjack. Joe’s posting put this in mind. )


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    my point might have been missed here. i don’t like john mayer, although he does what he does well. I was trying to show how a top level blues rock player isn’t even in the same world as a top level jazz musician and the “difficulty” doesn’t come close”

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    ps i dont think a player like mayer would ever CLAIM to be able to play at grassos level, or that they want to. Joe bonamassa or whatever his name is has some serious technique from learning danny gatton, but even him..

  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by joe2758
    Joe bonamassa or whatever his name is
    It's Joe Bonamasturbate....

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    It's hard to play rock well.

    It's hard to play jazz even poorly?

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by joe2758
    ps i dont think a player like mayer would ever CLAIM to be able to play at grassos level, or that they want to. Joe bonamassa or whatever his name is has some serious technique from learning danny gatton, but even him..
    I think he figured out to swing... Gary Moore.


  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    Does it matter? If Rock were more complex and theory-bound, it would not be rock. Nobody demands that Reggae or Country be more difficult.

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Litterick
    Does it matter? If Rock were more complex and theory-bound, it would not be rock. Nobody demands that Reggae or Country be more difficult.
    True, but nobody demanded jazz to be more difficult either. It became that way during the wars and the economic collapse in the US. It became complex because the mainstream audience couldn't effort to see shows so musicians stop caring for the audience. If it weren't for that period, jazz would've continued to be commercial music today like country. Economic situation recovered later of course but jazz never regained interest in the mainstream audience.

  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    ^^^^ this

    It is complicated by design. But so are some styles of classical music.

    One friend calls it, “bored musician’s music”. At least Bebop is. Played by musicians for musicians to showcase virtuosity in music.

    Rock can be that too, I just don’t think many people are doing that. Perhaps it wouldn’t be called “rock”. What would have sounded like if Bird had ripped up a Ariana Grande concoction rather than some broadway show tune? Would we call it jazz, rap, rock, pop?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    If the aim or the highest level is melody should it not all merge?

    There is so much jazz that is not melodic hence it lacks popularity. Too many wasted notes.

    Jazz is hard as a beginner let alone to progress to advanced There are many intermediate rock guitarists I would prefer to listen to than even so called jazz masters. But why progress or strive to be advanced in jazz if you cannot play a memorable blues solo or a memorable solo to Summertime. Is the complexity a crutch?

    I think jazz is hard to learn and easy to hide in its complexity and be average or below melodically, in other words really hard to be melodic, is there a fundamental floor there? Rock perhaps the opposite, easy to be melodic and easy to learn.

    How many jazz solos stand out and stick in your head compared to say Something by George Harrison? Lee Morgan has some unbelievable moments, Miles of course, Clifford Brown, there are some golden moments from Kenny Burrell and early George Benson but compared to the volume of their stuff the memorable singable melodies are few. And in the thousands and thousands and thousands of jazz recordings there are tit bits of amazing melody but can we name even 10 jazz albums that have the melody of a Rubber Soul or Abbey Road?

    Maybe jazz is more a live thing, when the band is burning and you are there feeling the energy there is nothing like it, the only recordings I feel a glimmer of that energy are Wes' live recordings. But burning is not memorably singable melody it is more like a metal shred fest without an overdrive pedal.

    I am currently weeding out my itunes playlist, if it is not melodic and memorable I am deleting. There is a lot receiving the delete button.

  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    True, but nobody demanded jazz to be more difficult either. It became that way during the wars and the economic collapse in the US. It became complex because the mainstream audience couldn't effort to see shows so musicians stop caring for the audience. If it weren't for that period, jazz would've continued to be commercial music today like country. Economic situation recovered later of course but jazz never regained interest in the mainstream audience.
    That theory is arguable. But in any case, it does not matter why jazz became complex, only that it did. It stopped being danceable. Rhythm and Blues filled the space it left behind for black audiences, as did Rock'n'Roll for white audiences. Rock developed from Rock'n'Roll, retaining its rhythmic and melodic simplicity. Many have experimented with complexity – The Beatles, the Canterbury scene, various contemporary forms of Metal – but Rock keeps returning to its roots.

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Litterick
    That theory is arguable. But in any case, it does not matter why jazz became complex, only that it did. It stopped being danceable. Rhythm and Blues filled the space it left behind for black audiences, as did Rock'n'Roll for white audiences. Rock developed from Rock'n'Roll, retaining its rhythmic and melodic simplicity. Many have experimented with complexity – The Beatles, the Canterbury scene, various contemporary forms of Metal – but Rock keeps returning to its roots.
    Jazz is a sponge, when Blacks in the US became progressively (I'm not American but I can analyse some facts) real citizens (maybe during and after the 2nd WW) for the society, it became like classical Afro-American music and took all the things they had missed and became more intellectual, and got a kind of dignity and respect in Europe, something they didn't have in the US. So they became musicians and composers, not just funny entertainers as they used to be seen.

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    My 2 cents:

    I am not really sure this is a helpful comparison, but it almost seems like a paradox of sorts. As amorphous as a jazz composition can be it is reliant on a full cohesiveness of everything involved, meaning it is less about a pastiche of things and more about the full interplay between the components. Rock can be a pastiche of things if even for the reason to be cohesive. Ever heard Pete Townsend's isolated guitar on some of the Who's biggest hits? He really isn't playing songs. Here is an example from Terry Kath. Remember that they played this stuff live, so they were truly pastiches to make songs with everyone else in the band. Although it might not be fair to everything in the rock world it does illustrate a kind of separate of how the latitude of a jazz composition encircles a larger area than rock. Does this make sense?


  17. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by gggomez
    ....And in the thousands and thousands and thousands of jazz recordings there are tit bits of amazing melody but can we name even 10 jazz albums that have the melody of a Rubber Soul or Abbey Road?
    ....
    Aw c'mon, there are thousands of Jazz albums with melodies to die for, left right and centre... Just because something is fast, it doesn't mean it's not melodic! Slow down Bird, early Getz, Clifford, Dexter, Rollins, Bill Evans etc etc etc.... It's all melody!

  18. #67

    User Info Menu

    For sure man. I am talking about the other 4 minutes of the tunes the improv.

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    Let's compare learning country compared to learning bluegrass....

  20. #69

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by gggomez
    For sure man. I am talking about the other 4 minutes of the tunes the improv.
    Speak for yourself, I would rather hear any solo by Bird, Dexter, Wes, etc. than most rock guitar solos. And I am not a ‘jazz elitist’, I used to play rock guitar so the rock guys were my original heroes, before I got into jazz.

    I still like a bit of rock now and then, but it’s not long before I get a bit bored with it and go back to jazz.

  21. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by gggomez
    For sure man. I am talking about the other 4 minutes of the tunes the improv.
    Um, that's what I'm talking about too! Seems we have different ideas about what constitutes "melody"...

  22. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
    Let's compare learning country compared to learning bluegrass....
    My reply to this was equally as smarmy, but seems it got bounced... hmmm...

  23. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    My reply to this was equally as smarmy, but seems it got bounced... hmmm...
    Apparently different people have different tolerances for irony...

    I see nothing vicious in his comment. Mean-spirited sarcasm and sniping at another person in a direct and personal way are a pretty different type of thing. I just don't see it as that.

    Comments have a context, based on the individual delivering them, as well. The jester has always had his place in society. He often risks being burned at the stake I guess, but let the jester do his thing. He very often delivers truth juxtaposed with the ridiculous. In a DIFFERENT way, the shaman has deep truths which have to be sifted through vast quantities of seeming insanity.

    Tolerances for all of these types will vary based on temperament and on regional communication styles etc. There's a strong modern western society prejudice in my opinion towards a very linear, reductionist, scientific way of talking and relating. other societies seem to value very different communication styles 's being valuable for their own sake.

    To those of us who are less inclined toward an overly linear way of speaking all of the time, the overly pragmatic and academic/scientific way of talking about things comes off as being just as annoying as the babbling shaman may be on the other side of the coin. A lot of it is largely personal preference.

    Anyway, speaking of babbling... Sorry.

    Let the jester be the jester.

  24. #73

    User Info Menu

    oh shit lemme be a knight

  25. #74

    User Info Menu

    I actually often find swing through most bop and even beyond improv MORE melodic. Anything that follows the changes...

    I think that's one of the reasons a player like say, Gilmour sounds so "melodic" in a rock context...he actually addresses the chord changes, doesn't just stuff the tune into a box and make "melody" from that.

  26. #75

    User Info Menu

    Jazz is harder on many levels. So why does this need to be discussed?