-
I found those on youtube which match the songs I have on CD. I'v never heard of jazz fraud. lol Maybe the thing is I will enjoy any solo (spontaneous or not) if it sounds good. Maybe you prefer spontaneous. its music either way.
-
06-23-2011 05:16 PM
-
What CD's do you have man? I'm not understanding this. Breezin's from "Breezin'" "Here to Stay" is from "We Live Here."
Different solos on disc and in the clips.
It is all music, and I like to listen to composed music as well as improvised (though I like improvised solos a lot more--because I like jazz)
You do get that improvisation is the crux of jazz, right? I know I keep pushing and ragging, but this is an important distinction. The improvisation level in jazz is as high as it gets...it's what makes the music unique.
I could write out solos and play them over tunes like "Countdown" or "Cherokee" or "Giant Steps," and I could play them impressively, but it wouldn't make me much of a jazzer. Improvisation is what we do. Benson and Metheny are two of the best at it. These are guys who have spent a lifetime honing the craft of improvisation. You've essentially told a lie about them.
-
You are correct. A solo does not have to be improvised to be a solo.
Originally Posted by S_R_S5
No mistake that improvisation is indeed the centerpiece of jazz, and represents the most interesting and challenging aspect of the music. but really, improvisation can exist in all genres and that in and of itself does not make it jazz.
Jazz is a style, a genre born out of a tradition. It allows musicians to use their own voice, which is usually comprised of sounds, ideas and phrases accumulated through allot of work and study. Its has evolved in many directions, but it now seems to be understood as being anything that is improvised, which is a bit silly. Does this mean that Celtic fiddle solos are jazz? Does it mean that big band scores that are played as written are not jazz? If Pat Metheny or George Benson did in fact play the same solo twice, does that make it un-jazz? Is an improvised solo that sounds like crap superior to a well-crafted great sounding rehearsed solo? (Is Kenny G jazz?
... sorry, I go too far.)
I don't have the answer ... but to me, if it sounds like jazz, it is jazz. Likewise, if it don't, it ain't... improvised or not.Last edited by Jazzaluk; 06-23-2011 at 06:44 PM.
-
I'm glad you qualified your statement with "... but to me" and it is indeed an eye opener to see how others perceive the genre of jazz. Originally Posted by Jazzaluk
History reveals a different take on this word as it pertains to music. It is by circumstance at the inception, tradition of its development and definition by its modern practice a CREATIVE art. Sure there are characteristic devices, forms and rhythmic parameters that impart an identifiable sound we all recognize, but if it sounds like jazz, it is not necessarily historically- jazz.
Yes we like to listen to jazz, but jazz is a performer's art. It's reason d'etre is to create, converse, construct a statement in real time. It's not unique but it is very clearly defined this way. If you go to a restaurant that is assumed to serve fresh lobster, and in the back room they've used a newly developed petroleum based substitute, it may taste like lobster, and you might enjoy it, but it's not lobster. The living spontaneous element of the solo is essential.
Granted, a solo may not always be inspired. And we're human and sometimes we lapse into cliche and thoughtless reworkings, but it's our job to exercise the process of improvisation and not merely make a product that sounds good.
Maybe we lose sight of this because we buy jazz in product form, play it over and over again and listen as product, but to be true to the genre of jazz, the true jazz solo is one that has the honesty of a genuine informed conversation.
David
-
Truth ... Thanks for the interesting reply. I see your point very clearly and it is very convincing. When I think of any art form I have a bad habit of thinking in terms of a transmitter and receiver. So, right or wrong, I view jazz with the receiver always in mind. I'll throw out a few counter-points from that perspective.
Can't disagree with this, but there is a large creative element to jazz that is not improvised. Originally Posted by TruthHertz
Hmmm ... this I don't get. If someone aims to create music in any genre and succeeds in sounding like that genre, how can it be excluded? Who is the arbitrator? ... musicians or audience? This is the conundrum that gives rise to the "Jazz Police" phobias on both sides.Sure there are characteristic devices, forms and rhythmic parameters that impart an identifiable sound we all recognize, but if it sounds like jazz, it is not necessarily historically- jazz.
Interesting choice of words ... "performer's art". This seems to imply it is an activity for musician consumption only. I prefer "performing art", which includes the audience and their perceptions of jazz.Yes we like to listen to jazz, but jazz is a performer's art. It's reason d'etre is to create, converse, construct a statement in real time.
The living spontaneous element of the solo is essential to all kinds of music. Again, we agree the act of improvisation is not unique to jazz. The distinguishing feature is the particular language involved. Its seems that today, any spontaneous improvised music can legitimately claim to be jazz. Personally I don;t care, but if this is the defining element then the restaurant can serve anything on the menu and call it lobster as long as it is not petroleum-based (I know, that was badIt's not unique but it is very clearly defined this way. If you go to a restaurant that is assumed to serve fresh lobster, and in the back room they've used a newly developed petroleum based substitute, it may taste like lobster, and you might enjoy it, but it's not lobster. The living spontaneous element of the solo is essential.
)
I agree with the exercise, but if it doesn't sound good there is no job.it's our job to exercise the process of improvisation and not merely make a product that sounds good.
.Nicely put ... Conversation with who?..to be true to the genre of jazz, the true jazz solo is one that has the honesty of a genuine informed conversation.
Just some provoking thoughts ... to be really truthful, live improvisation is what I love about jazz, but I still like to listen to the well crafted solos over and over and I don't really care how they were created.
Last edited by Jazzaluk; 06-23-2011 at 09:34 PM.
-
"Creative" is a term I use here in compliment with "re-creative" music; a music that follows prescribed direction-wriiten or otherwise. I make this distinction because I feel jazz is defined by intention and not merely perception of the listener. I hope I'm not a jazz nazi. I am a player who's concept of what I do is bounded by a feeling of historical context. If I came across a composed soundtrack in a movie that was written and performed to fill a scene and I saw the result of take 23 of cafe scene and it sounded like Django, I'd like it, but to me it's not jazz. If I hear easy listening on the radio and it has violins playing a rendition of a cleverly arranged Oasis tune for string quartet, some may hear classical but to me it's not classical. Intention of the performer vs perception of the listener. Originally Posted by Jazzaluk
Interesting choice of words ... "performer's art". This seems to imply it is an activity for musician consumption only. I prefer "performing art", which includes the audience and their perceptions of jazz.
Valid point. I specifically say a performer's art because I see the act of playing jazz as one that requires the performer/musician to give substance from the lexicon/syntax/semantics of that individual in real time. The music has an audience of course but the unique nature of jazz comes from the spontaneous compositional element of the performer. Maybe I might say it's a "real time composer's art."
The living spontaneous element of the solo is essential to all kinds of music. Again, we agree the act of improvisation is not unique to jazz. The distinguishing feature is the particular language involved. Its seems that today, any spontaneous improvised music can legitimately claim to be jazz. Personally I don;t care, but if this is the defining element then the restaurant can serve anything on the menu and call it lobster as long as it is not petroleum-based (I know, that was bad )
I'm not equating improvisation with jazz, but positing that improvisation is an essential subset of jazz. I is a subset of J but not all I is J. There is some wobbly logic in your statement (might be the fake lobster
)
Nicely put ... Conversation with who?
Conversation with the audience, with the form, with time, with God, with the walls of the room, with you. But a conversation no less, as a stream of consciousness elegantly stated through art. I was speaking of conversation as opposed to monologue or rote ramblings. Conversation as part of a living process reflecting a living soul, not a scripted speech.
I like lots of music, I play different kinds, and there's some music some call free jazz, but I am reluctant to put any kind of label on that. Labels can be a waste of space, debating labels is a waste of good practice time!
David
-
I can't even play the same thing once
.......as the man said
-
Originally Posted by TruthHertz
I enjoy reading your posts and I like your perspective. I totally agree with the concept of "intention" and have tried to explain my views on this in other threads (not too effectively I suspect).
Music speaks to people in a unique way. It goes directly to the emotions. IMO, the intent of music as an art, improvised or not, is to stimulate, share or communicate some kind of emotion. It is an unfortunate reality that the music enters the listener through their perceptions. To me its allot like comedy, if nobody laughs at a joke it either wasn't funny or it was poorly delivered.
I see you are picking up on the "intention" theme in another thread, so I will let this one get back on topic. Cheers
-
You guys ever go to an improvised comedy night? Last time I went I enjoyed and marvelled at the quick wit and invention shown by the players. If someone had whispered in my ear that they were going by a well rehearsed script, I would have booed and asked for my money back. If it were a conventional play I of course would not have a problem, they're not supposed to be improvising (well, not much anyway).
Calling something Jazz and not improvising is like calling something improvised comedy and not improvising.
You'd have every right to feel ripped off.
-
Well... it is called "Improvisation" which means we "Improvise." I have had nights where I had to take a ton of choruses over every tune because the trumpet player's lips were tired and he wanted a break. You can't really plan a solo in those circumstances. Besides, sight reading at gigs is very common. In a big band it is good to have a general outline of what your solo will be though, helps you react to horn backgrounds. You don't need to write anything down on staff paper for that though
-
i think that guys that work out solos are often considered some of the best improvisers. this was a very common thing in the good old days. i have heard many recordings of Lee Morgan playing 85% the same solo with the Messengers. I saw Lou Donaldson in the late 90s at the vanguard play literally the same solo I heard him play on the Messengers' "live at the vanguard" record from the early 50s...Bird did too.
while i dont personally play like that, I dont think think this is a bad thing at all. i think it is a way for a guy to really PLAY THE SONG. alot of what i feel is wrong with modern jazz is that the song is totally secondary to the soloing. guys might as well not be playing songs if its just an exercise.
what are you trying to say in your solo? if you dont know, maybe we should write it down until we do.
Reply With Quote
There will be another you changes
Today, 02:06 AM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions