-
Do lengthy solos chase people away or turn them off to listening to some music? I'm asking about the customers perspective.
-
04-03-2013 03:06 AM
-
Turn them OFF!! The average listener needs a hook, only other musicians like long solo's. Just my £0.02p..
Tom..
-
If you want your (I assume we're talking about jazz?) tune to break out on syndicated radio networks, I'd say no...
More seriousy, I guess it will depend on the sub-genre that you play and the context.
If you play some kind of Free Jazz, or some stuff close to what Coltrane did on Impulse, or fusion, or just something in the spirit of the jazz from the 60's and 70's, you'd better have the chops to solo for a long, long time.
On the other hand, if you have a more tradional approach to older music (1920's or 30's), you may take as little as four bar breaks here and there to eigth or 16 or 32 bars. Sometimes maybe a couple choruses, because it's the tune that features you.
That'd be for gigs or recordings sessions I suppose.
In a jam situation, that's another story and it will depend on the rules (if there are any) or the "culture" of a particular jam.Last edited by Eddie Lang; 04-03-2013 at 04:41 AM.
-
Should the question be can you play something meaningful, creative and interesting over 20 mins that brings the listener along with you?
Other factor worth considering is what level of interaction / listening and response is there with the rest of the band - if the rhythm section goes onto auto-pilot during a solo that can become very boring very quickly - but if they are really digging in to support, challenge and respond to the soloist - driving them on then that can be incredible to listen to
-
I was referring to a be-bop setting mostly. Along the lines of Bird. Or Miles Davis, Kind of Blue. I know Coltrane took long solos. My experience is with fairly short solos in R&B, longer ones in blues, some rock, funk. Also jam band where they would be very long. We did some swing in jam band but long or short didn't matter.
I was just wondering about the audience point of view.
-
i don't know, steve..all of us here being players, hard to get an accurate civilian perspective. but of the places i go to listen to jazz, i don't recall ever seeing anyone leave because they appeared to be bored or bewildered if the cats were taking their time and digging in. i think anyone who will listen to jazz on purpose will follow the player, wherever the moment might meander...
-
To be democratic, everyone in your band should take a 20 minute solo.
-
20 minutes is a long time. Who are you thinking of? I can't remember the last time I heard somebody go for 20 minutes. Maybe two guys for 10 minutes each. Now that I think about, I guess I saw Brecker with his trio do a couple of 20 minute solos, especially since I don't think the bass player or drummer got to solo once. lol. Lovano gets up there sometimes I guess.
But one thing I've found is that I either like what somebody is doing or I don't. And if I do, then I like it if they go on as long as they can. If I don't, then sooner it is over the better. I never think, oh, this is a great solo, but he should end it now.
-
A workshop instructor brought it up. It was in regards to a well-known local player. I said 20 minutes, seriously? He said yes. I guess he brought it up because someone with my experience which is all outside of jazz might not care much about the length of solos.
Originally Posted by jster
Seems to me we have Bird, who didn't like more than 3 choruses, and then an era that came just after him where people might stretch-out for a long time. It wasn't just in jazz either. Starting in the 60's solos could be very long in many genres.
I don't care about the length of solos so much but I was wondering what other musicians and the audience might think about it.Last edited by Stevebol; 04-03-2013 at 12:58 PM.
-
It's been my contention for a long while that long solos is one of the things that really turn people off to jazz. But you have to keep in mind the venue and the players. If I'm at the Village Vanguard and am listening to Chris Potter, Brad Mehldau etc, I WANT to hear THEM stretch. But Joe Bloggs at the Squeezy Pie Inn? No. Absolutely not, unless he's on par with those guys. I think it's better to play shorter solos, and more songs. Being AWARE that there's an audience there and how they're receiving the music is something that not a lot of jazz musicians have a talent for.
Last edited by henryrobinett; 04-03-2013 at 12:58 PM.
-
Not much to add, other than the really important thing to take away is that learning how to read an audience is an important skill.
-
File under "Handle with Care" Monophonic instrument ? Forget about it. If someone like Sonny Rollins can barely pull it off, mere mortals should tread very carefully. Legend has it this is what turned Wes sour about his time in Trane's band.
Piano? Keith Jarrett can definitely do it-in spades.
Guitar-- outside of jazz, check out Robert Fripp and his Solar Voyager. Takes guitar and technology to an entirely different level.
It's not just jazz that bores the hell out of people--in the 70s I guess millions lusted after extended sloppy Jimmy Page wank jobs. But they were neatly all stoned. In the cold light of day????
-
If it serves the music, then a 20 minute solo is fine. Do people attending the symphony leave because the second movement was too long? Great players have a sense on how to construct a solo and when done well, its just as long as it should have been, whether its Bird taking a 8 bars or Trane blowing for 45 minutes. For jazz played well at a high level, it's art, and length of solos is one part of the artist's aesthetic. I certainly like long solos, when they work. But good jazz is a music for and by musicians mostly, and so what "customers" like is secondary.
But, most jazz as it is performed (outside of say decent jazz clubs and concert halls) is not art, but entertainment. In my view the main reason people get turned off by jazz is that when they hear it in local live music situations ("Joe Bloggs at the Squeezy Pie Inn") it is so frequently awful. Taking overly long solos is just one of many ways in which live jazz can be bad, there is also bad time, no control of harmony, no groove, keyboard sounding like a toy piano, singer's pitch is off, no interaction, no dynamics, drums too loud, self-important posturing, taking forever between tunes, all tunes the same tempo/key, out of tune horns, etc. There could be a whole thread on the many ways in which bad jazz is bad.....long solos is just a start!
-
I don't think anyone takes 20 minute solos. That's half a set, for ONE solo? Nah.
I'm not against it, but the question is if you can play something so interesting that it stretches for 20 minutes. Think about classical symphonies. A typical movement can last anywhere between 5-12 minutes. That's as interesting as it gets, and they don't go for 20 minutes.
I know guys like Kurt Rosenwinkel can definitely stretch out to 20 minutes, but if you're playing straight bop, anything after 3 choruses gets repetitive, unless you're playing at over 300, when 3 choruses goes by in like 1 minute.
So really, it's (1) Can you do it? and (2) should you do it? There's a space and time for everything, so just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should.
-
If you can play a 20minute solo and hold the audience's captivation and the band on stages, then I see no problem. Coltrane used to take 45minute solos on some tune, but he was an unbelievable talent and even then you'd have to work out in the band things. No one had the stanima to deal with Train except Elvin, that's why mcCoy and Garrison would drop out and let them go at it for 10mins at a time.
Basically, it's a bad idea. Even a solo over 3 minutes typically is too long unless you're Chris Potter or Pat Metheny or <insert name of amazing jazz artist here>.
It is far too easy to be self indulgent with your solos. My theory on it is that we so seldom get to play in public these days (decline of live music) that when we do get to play, be it a jam or a gig we tend to get carried away and don't censor ourselves enough.
-
Yes, but I'm taking 20 minutes not LITERALLY. Any long ass, boring ass solo. I know some guys who just think it's cool to Trane out. And if they can't really get it going they think 5 more choruses and they can find their stride. Of course it never happens.
Yes jazz is an art form. Let's not kill the art. There are some artists who are real artists. They can take their time to develop something sublime. If it takes 20 choruses to develop something GREAT, if it's GREAT, well then GREAT. But if it's not you're just being an assh***. Why would you subject an audience, let alone your fellow bandmates to that? And the more you play that tired s***, the less someone else in the band can.Last edited by henryrobinett; 04-04-2013 at 02:53 AM.
-
The issue of long solos came up in a workshop. I think the teacher must have been frustrated with something to even bring it up. We did Bill's Bounce, Autumn Leaves, and My Little Suede Shoes. I'd have gone with Bill's Bounce, Blue Bossa and Straight no Chaser. Plus when people are just trying to get a groove going I don't see the point of trying to trade 4's.
It was still educational.Last edited by Stevebol; 04-03-2013 at 09:37 PM.
-
jazz is played in song form. that's not good for 20 minutes, especially for any single musician.
to play a long time, you need a long compositional form. concertos are one very successful example.Last edited by fumblefingers; 04-03-2013 at 11:17 PM.
-
Damn....I don't even want to hear a whole song that lasts more than seven minutes anymore. Boring. It all starts to sound the same and ....zzzZZZZZzzZZzz....play like you have to pay for every note, didn't we learn that less is more? I think this is why lots of the general population gave up on listening to jazz. Boring. People have so many long boring stories to tell, make 'em short.
-
comments about songs getting on radio and jazz being boring? really?
as if we don't all know that jazz died the day rock and roll was born, and lives on only as a niche specialized listeners music.
to answer the question, no, there is nothing wrong with a 20 minute solo but it better be fucking hot shit. in other words, it needs to justify itself to keep going that long, a.k.a. one hell of an amazing solo.
-
There's a famous story of Coltrane talking to Miles, asking for advice on how to play a more brief, cohesive solo...Miles told him "take the motherfucking horn out of your mouth"!
I saw a documentary/show on Trane a while back and supposedly he would play at times very long (I think they said and hour or more) solos on the same tune. The story goes that during a very extended (still in progress) solo, a waitress dropped a tray of drinks, covered her ears and sceamed for them to stop.
-
I think the story was Coltrane told Miles he didn't know how to end his solos. And Mikes reputedly said, "Take the mother fucking horn out your mouth."
-
After thinking it over I'm OK with long solos. I saw a vid of the guy with a reputation for long solos playing. It was 'All Blues'.
-
long solos and 20 minute solos ain't necessarily the same thing.
long is more than 3 chorus'. or is that choruses?
anyway, more than 3. right?Last edited by fumblefingers; 04-09-2013 at 11:23 PM.
-
Agreed. Originally Posted by Toat
If you're playing longer than twice through the chart
You better bloody well have something to say.
Otherwise shut up.
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions