Compare learning rock/blues to learning Jazz...

[princeplanet]

Youtube rock/blues wanker algorithm (That Pedal Show, Anderton's etc)

Algorithm 1
begin
10 Get a new pedal/amp, max out overdrive
20 Play G, A, D chords in any order in open position
30 Be blown away by the amazing sound etc.
40 IF (bored yet) then GO TO 10 else GO TO 20
end


Algorithm 2
begin
10 Doodle around pentatonic while staying in comfort zone focusing on licks learned when you were 13
20 IF (it's a good time to bend) THEN bend one of those notes on easy to bend strings
30 Doodle some more
40 GetRandomNumber(i)
50 IF (i is odd) GO TO 10 ELSE GO TO 20
end


All the while thousands of internet beginners think this guys must be god.

A mediocre jazz player is like Chopin compared to a mediocre rock/blues wanker in all aspects of musicianship.

Finally someone who is not afraid to call it like it is!

[strumcat]

All I know is that I'd rather hear a garbage collector say something interesting than hear an English professor say something boring. As Louie Armstrong said, there's only two kinds of music... music that sounds good and music that doesn't sound good. And there are both kinds in every genre of music, and at every level of difficulty. Watching a musician for their virtuosity alone is very interesting for about 20 minutes. Then you want to go hear some good music.

[princeplanet]

All I know is that I'd rather hear a garbage collector say something interesting than hear an English professor say something boring. As Louie Armstrong said, there's only two kinds of music... music that sounds good and music that doesn't sound good. And there are both kinds in every genre of music, and at every level of difficulty. Watching a musician for their virtuosity alone is very interesting for about 20 minutes. Then you want to go hear some good music.

Wow, you say that like there's someone out there that actually might disagree with such an obvious thing to say!

Now, if this thread was titled "compare how you feel when listening to really great rock/blues playing vs difficult-yet-uninspiring Jazz playing" - you're comment would be right at home. But seeing it isn't, well....

[christianm77]

A lot of people feel that way about jazz though, like it or not.

We can argue about why...

[Tal_175]

Yeah but then judging by the ratings, majority of people rather watch cheesy, exploitative, crime reality shows and keep being moved by the same fake, crude, obvious, banal devices then watching a good history documentary. Because that would be boring.

Although we all sometimes wonder about the lack of popularity of jazz and question if it's the fault of jazz musicians and culture, ask ourselves if jazz has gotten too carried away, is it too pretentious and in love with the idea of itself. Those elements might be there sometimes. Especially with the young musicians. Nothing is perfect. But jazz has consistently appealed to and satisfied the more curious demographic who is offended by the mainstream populist cliches. That's a very important task to fulfil.

[Reg]

yea... sounds like we get it.... more difficult to play and much more difficult to perform Jazz etc...

So when one goes to see and hear music.... why do they go. the music, the show, the performers, probably the majority go for one of the three.... or maybe for the social action, food etc...

It's a little weird to be on a jazz guitar site and need to get into why audiences would rather go see and hear jazz rather than pop, blues or rock etc... so as posted... the obvious, most don't....... But if one can actually perform jazz.... have performance skills.... be able actually make connection with audience.... most really dig it.

The problem is most don't have those skills, because they don't work on them.... it takes years and is nonstop work. If you don't have or make some kind of personal connection to the audience.... your just background music. If you can't chew gum and walk at the same time...you need to work on the skill, it's part of performance.

[Hep To The Jive]

All I know is that I'd rather hear a garbage collector say something interesting than hear an English professor say something boring. As Louie Armstrong said, there's only two kinds of music... music that sounds good and music that doesn't sound good. And there are both kinds in every genre of music, and at every level of difficulty. Watching a musician for their virtuosity alone is very interesting for about 20 minutes. Then you want to go hear some good music.

I strongly disagree! 20 min is way too long, 5 min tops.

[Tal_175]

Watching a musician for their virtuosity alone is very interesting for about 20 minutes. Then you want to go hear some good music.

If all one has to offer is their technical ability then they are an extremely lousy musician. If they can be considered musician at all. They exist in all types of music (rock, blues, jazz, bluegrass, classical etc.). So I don't know how that exactly relates to the thread.

[princeplanet]

If all one has to offer is their technical ability then they are an extremely lousy musician....

I feel inclined to agree, but then I recall events like going to hear Chris Potter live. Obviously a master musician, but it just didn't go into my body, busloads of technical ability, but mot much soul or something, dunno... Yeah, I wanted to leave after 5 minutes, perhaps more because I was a lousy listener, at least on that night...

[christianm77]

yea... sounds like we get it.... more difficult to play and much more difficult to perform Jazz etc...

So when one goes to see and hear music.... why do they go. the music, the show, the performers, probably the majority go for one of the three.... or maybe for the social action, food etc...

Maybe that's why the food at Ronnie's is so bad? ;-)

It's a little weird to be on a jazz guitar site and need to get into why audiences would rather go see and hear jazz rather than pop, blues or rock etc... so as posted... the obvious, most don't....... But if one can actually perform jazz.... have performance skills.... be able actually make connection with audience.... most really dig it.

The problem is most don't have those skills, because they don't work on them.... it takes years and is nonstop work. If you don't have or make some kind of personal connection to the audience.... your just background music. If you can't chew gum and walk at the same time...you need to work on the skill, it's part of performance.

Indeed.

[dallasblues]

I’m not so sure the chasms between jazz and rock or blues (or even country) has always been that wide. Take Scotty Moore or T-Bone Walker for instance. I hear lots of jazz in their playing.

[jobabrinks]

If you disagree, you might infer that I must be doing it all wrong (I've heard that one before). Just so I see you coming, let me just say that if you disagree that the difference is that great, I'll say outright, without a shred of doubt, that you must be doing it wrong!

Novices watching this space will no doubt side with the "Nah, Jazz is not that complicated" brigade. I get it, it's what you wanna believe (and we all tend to read and agree with what suits us these days - Idiocracy an' all that...). Cool, come back to this thread in 5 years and let's see how you're travelling, in fact, let's make it 10!

I will agree with this and as a personal anecdote I will say as someone who has spent years playing both that I have posted something here some time ago and the consensus was pretty much that it sucked. It wouldn't be nearly that harsh if I posted something on a rock forum.

However, I will say that most people gloss over the technical proficiency required to play even some non-shred classic rock. Somebody mentioned GnR upthread.

Try to play this solo like this guy plays it. And it's not considered a hard solo...

I mean granted, you can play the notes and even throw your own solo in there and it would fit fine, but I think part of the job of a rock guitarist is to play it 'just like that' or better with all the nuances and inflections. And it's not easy.

[Tal_175]

However, I will say that most people gloss over the technical proficiency required to play even some non-shred classic rock. Somebody mentioned GnR upthread.

Try to play this solo like this guy plays it. And it's not considered a hard solo...

I agree it is not a hard solo. Not at all. I think most jazz guitar players were able play solo's like this and even harder before stepping foot in the jazz world. I personally was playing a lot of Metallica, Pink Floyd etc. before I got into jazz. Not very many guitar players who were teens during and after 80's (even 70's) start jazz before spending several years in the rock/pop/folk genres. You know at some point boredom takes over for some of us after shredding GnR, nR, nR, nR ...
Rock and pop bands are more entertainers than musicians (with some notable exceptions). This is not jazz snobbery. I think that's how most of the public sees them as well. Learning jazz really makes you feel like you're on a journey to become a musician.

[jobabrinks]

I agree it is not a hard solo. Not at all. I think most of us in this forum were able play solo's like this and even harder before we stepped foot in the jazz world. I personally was playing a lot of Metallica, Pink Floyd etc. before I got into jazz. Not very many guitar players who were teens during and after 80's (even 70's) start jazz before spending several years in the rock/pop/folk genres. You know at some point boredom takes over for some of us after shredding GnR, nR, nR, nR ...
Rock and pop bands are more entertainers than musicians. This is not jazz snobbery. I think that's how most of the public sees them as well. Learning jazz really makes you feel like you're on a journey to become a musician.

Actually I was saying the opposite, lol.

The consensus is that it is an easy solo, but it's really not that easy.

I mean, a lot of people 'can sort of play that solo' but not like that guy. That guy hasn't just been playing for a few years.

Check out the rest of his stuff...

[Tal_175]

I mean granted, you can play the notes and even throw your own solo in there and it would fit fine, but I think part of the job of a rock guitarist is to play it 'just like that' or better with all the nuances and inflections. And it's not easy.

I disagree that reproducing solos or entire performances with all the nuances and inflections has ever been a goal for rock. That's the goal of classical musicians. You'll almost never see a song performed exactly the same way live in the rock genre. That's for the most part because the style favours more in the moment experience and stage performance/entertainment than honouring the exact album recording. But I suspect it's also in part due to the limitations and gaps in the training of the musicians in some cases. It was I think a common practice at some point for rock/pop producers to use A-list session musicians instead of the band members for the recordings to save studio rental time and to get the best possible results. Session musicians had often jazz or classical background.

[mr. beaumont]

Who the hell cares if a jazz player can play a Guns n Rose's solo? I dont care if Slash can shred on Giant Steps...

This whole thread reeks of guitar owner syndrome, where music is a competition and we need to make "best of lists" of everything.

[jobabrinks]

Who the hell cares if a jazz player can play a Guns n Rose's solo? I dont care if Slash can shred on Giant Steps...

This whole thread reeks of guitar owner syndrome, where music is a competition and we need to make "best of lists" of everything.

Yea, sorry if that rubbed you the wrong way.

I don't care, that's for sure.

OP posted something about people who played both rock and jazz and discussing what goes into learning what and being a good player at both and I was commenting on that.

Cheers...

[mr. beaumont]

Its all good. I think the thread is ridiculous anyway, which is no fault of yours.