The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Posts 26 to 50 of 97
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    I don't recall mentioning Cindy Lauer in my list of pop people. By the way , did she write the song of just sing it? If Miley sings this song will she be an artist too?

    Yeah ok , In a hard days night Lennon may been fooling with Strawberry Fields but when did we finally see it? Lennon alway was into art but it was't until they stopped touring and sat down to really work at their craft did the make the transition. Is "She Loves" you real art? Ask Paul McCartney what he thinks about it. Then I guess we'll know.

    I guess I'll say it goes by what you put out on display. I can play the most intense stuff yet all I release is a song like "Insert song by Brittany here". I may be an artist but I'm certainly not making art.

    Let's look at Alanis Morrisette . She was the Nickalodean darling. One day she woke up and then we got Jagged Little Pill.

    Listen , I'm not being high brow. I certainly think there are tons of things out there that can be considered art like Bluegrass music, Classical, Hank Williams, Pink Floyd, and music of indigenous peoples.

    However let's not muddy the waters by saying that ANY ONE that sings, paints , dances , writes, or what have you is an artist. It just ain't so. And quite frankly not everyone that post here is an artist.

    Me? I'm certainly no artist. Just a guitar player.
    Last edited by JohnW400; 05-09-2009 at 10:46 PM.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnW400
    i don't recall mentioning Cindy Lauer in my list of pop people. By the way , did she write the son of just sing it? Id Miley sings this song will she be an artist too?

    YOeah ok , In a hard days night Lennon may been fooling with Strawberry Fields but when did we finally see it? Lennon alway was into art but it was't until they stopped touring and sat down to really work at their craft did the make the transition. is She Loves you real art. Ask Paul McCartney what he thinks about it. Then I guess we'll know.

    Let's look at Alanis Morrisette . She was the Nickolodean darling. One day she woke up and then we got Jagged Little Pill.
    Cindy Lauper wrote the tune with another guy....
    Wikipedia.....
    Lauper co-wrote "Time After Time" with Rob Hyman when her producer, Rick Chertoff, suggested to the band that the album could use one more song. The record label did not have much faith in Lauper as a songwriter, but they gave her the chance to prove herself. "Time After Time" was one of the biggest hits of 1984. It has been covered by more than 100 artists

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    Joni Mitchell was "just" a folk singer yet her songs and ability blossomed.
    Again from Wikipedia...
    She worked closely with jazz greats including Wayne Shorter, Jaco Pastorius, Herbie Hancock, and on a 1979 record released after his death, Charles Mingus

    The point is don't judge and artist because you never know. Just say it's not your taste and be done with it.

    We are all artists and stars. I know because John Lennon told me so.

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnW400
    Is "She Loves" you real art? Ask Paul McCartney what he thinks about it. Then I guess we'll know. .
    I really dont mean to pick on you it's just that I disagree with almost everything you say.

    She Loves You is the highest form of art!!!

    It connected with a whole generation of people to actually change the world as we knew it.

    Fashion, music, art, politics, This song and the Beatles has changed society as we know it.

    Has Pat Martino even scratched that surface of influence through his art.

    I love Pat and Bird and all the others but it's not fair to say that they are high art because it is difficult to understand and relate to while the Beatles hit your soul right from the first listen.

    I guess we will have to agree to disagree here.

    Bottom line is what do you think is the ultimate purpose of art?

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    She Loves You was a pop song. Nothing more. Revolver through Abbey Road was art.

    She loves you was sceaming girls chasing after pop stars. The Beatle themselves grew tired of this and wanted to do more serious stuff. Hence.... Revolver.

    Listen man, I was 5 in 1963. I had every single and album they ever released. All I wanted for Christmas when I was 12 was All Things Must Pass. My sister has a picture of me holding this LP on xmas day. I, like 100.000 + others, play guitar because of them. My question is one of timing. To me they relly didn't make the jump until after they left the sceaming teeny boppers behind. And for years and years none of th ecorporate types could figure it out. A couple of bands came out and their PR peolle siad that here was the next beatles , but all that came out was some young, attractive musicians playing pop. The corporate types hadn't quite figured the formula out yet. They still haven't figured it out. There is no formula . when it happens....it happens and no amount of merchandised singers like the Brittany's , Miley's, Hansons or Jonas Brothers are going to make art out of what they're doing. It;s not being packaged to be art.

    But I think we digress. If you want to talk about world changing musicians we'll ned to stat with Louis Armstrong and move through the Duke and all those Swing cats.

    To me art is something that other people call something someone else is doing, that they really can't put their finger on....but they know that they like it.

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    So Rubber Soul was not art

    A sitar on "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)," Greek-like guitar lines on "Michelle" and "Girl," fuzz bass on "Think for Yourself," and a piano made to sound like a harpsichord on the instrumental break of "In My Life". Which was recently listed as the best song ever written in the rock era by Rolling Stone.

    Oh Ok this album qualifies but the one before does not?
    Andy Warhol was just a pop art guy right? No real art there.
    Sidney Pollack, Lou Reed, Sex Pistols, Talking Heads. Thats just pop and punk right?
    Most people would not know art if it bit them on the ass.

    Dig... Its all good. Just because it does not fit an individual preconcieved notion of art does not make it not art.

    Was Marilyn Monroe an artist? What about Marlin Brando or Elvis, Scotty Moore, Gene Vincent.
    The Andrew Sisters, The Marx Bros., Abbott and Costello?

    It's hard to draw a line.
    I remember listening to the B-52's and telling my friend that they remind me of Weather Report! The layers of sound and how the parts interacted with each other, He thought I was nuts. Years later he told me I was right that the B-52's did have some very interesting interplay with the vocals.

    It's all good.

    I hate rap but Eminem is very interesting.

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    art is a direct reflection of the human condition, and imitation of life. It is subjective, but I will say this, it's no secret that most Amrican roots music was, and has always been improvised, from the days of field hollers, to peidmont picking, bluegrass and Tex-Mex Tejano, it was at least a little to completely improvised. In fact, indigenous musics from all over the world are mostly improvised. From the Gnawa musicians to the East Indian classical, East European Klezmer music to Ud-based Egyptian melodies. It's all improv. The only thing Miley Cyrus improvises is a new dance move when she forgets the right one. I personally will always favor improvised art over premeditated, manufactured art any day!!!!!!!!!!!

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    Oh that postmodernist nonsense!! If I take a crap on a canvas and try to have it "installed" into a museum, it's not considered art but vandalism or something. If someone wealthy and backed by "art" patrons does the same thing, it is HIGH CULTURE.

    There is a guy in Rome who tosses red dye into the water at the famous Bernini sculpture (what the heck is the name of that place again?*) and throws a bunch of plastic balls down the stairs at the Piazza di Spagna.

    He calls himself a "neo-futurist" or something like that. I call him a jackass and a clown. Period.

    Oh no, singori!! The world has come to an end. Finis mundi.

    Edit---
    *The Trevi fountain, I just remembered.
    Last edited by franco6719; 05-10-2009 at 07:54 AM.

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    "It's hard to draw a line."

    Certainly it is very hard to draw a line, but that does not meant that such lines does not exist.


    "It's all good."

    Really? ALL good. Then what's the point of practicing, studying, and trying to become good if everything already sounds good?

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    Was Marilyn Monroe an artist? No.

    What about Marlin Brando--- Yes or Elvis (maybe) Scotty Moore (who is it?), Gene Vincent (yes)
    The Andrew Sisters (Maybe), The Marx Bros (Yes), Abbott and Costello (No)?

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    Bottom line is what do you think is the ultimate purpose of art?

    Hmm...now that I think about it, if I thought jazz were popular, entertainment music I probably would not have gotten interested in it in the first place. Same is true of my choices of literature (James Joyce, Proust), books, philosophy, etc.. I'm just not a "light-minded" person. "To each his own Number One." ...Captain Picard.

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    I think some peoples' definition of 'art' is far too selective and elitist. It really isn't that big of a deal.

    Some artists, like, say, Miles Davis, have a huge impact on their peers, have a long and productive career at the peak of their artistic field, receive great critical acclaim, and have university courses salivating over their work. Some other artists just play a beat-up guitar on the corner of a street and hope people will chuck them a few pennies.

    Why does the term 'art' have to be so set-in-stone? There are surely various levels of art, and Marilyn Monroe, Miley Cyrus, and the early Beatles' work would surely exist as art on some level or other, that level being ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE!!!

  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    Art is about making people feel something through an artistic media. Some artist have control over what they try to accomplish and others simply flail away and hope that the result resonates with someone. The worst kind of artist is one that creates a piece and then has to explain to the observer what it tries to convey. I call this art with a user-manual. Even worse, is the self-declared artist who expects some intellectually self-absorbed aficionados to declare their work as art, reducing it to some intellectual activity and destroying any remnant of feeling. They view other artists as their audience and are generally fascinated with themselves and identify with being unique and eccentric.

    Point is.. that if what is created makes people feel something then it could be considered art. If the creator has enough control over their media to actually transmit a specific feeling to someone else, then they can call themselves an artist. All others are practitioners and craftsmen on the journey to becoming artists.

    Pop music is a craft that transmits to a mass audience. The songs that endure usually have successfully transmitted a strong emotional trigger to a large number of people and in this sense it is pure art (whether the result was intended or not). Songs that die on the charts (but still make money) are usually ones where promoters try to instruct the masses about what they are suppose to like and how they are suppose to feel - unfortunately this works - very dangerous, but it works. However, its more manipulation than art.
    Last edited by Jazzaluk; 05-10-2009 at 09:30 AM.

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    Once again, can you really call a "singer" who probably lip-syncs on stage, has her voice digitally altered in the studio, doesn't relly write her own music and artist? I think just like Franco said Abbot and Costello weren't art, Miley and others are entertainment. Entertainment is were you really don't have to use your mind to appreciate it. Art makes you think, wonder about the shape, contour and texture. THINK ABOUT IT PPL!!!!!!!!!Art is by definition also 2 things:as Trane once said "Art is a reflection of the human condition, and also of the times. The social, political and emotional climate are often refleced in art." THAT'S B/C THEY'RE PRIMARY INFLUENCES!!!> When Trane did Alabama, he did so for the movement and MLK. When bluegrass was in its infancy, it was a direct reflection of the coal worker who barely made it by financially, even though the music stemed from Scottish melodies. It would be absurd to recreate certain arts during "revolutions" (psychadelia, old-school metal, ect) Because we don't live during those times.

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    Well well well, if we look at the opening post on this thread we'll realise we are off on some tangent! Guess that we all have strong opinions as to what constitutes Art and that we'd rather discuss this than the initial question. Suits me, happens to be one of my raw nerves too. "L'Art pour L'Art" ... art for art's sake....that helps us draw the line a little I reckon. Oscar Wilde once said "All art is quite useless, it has no use, except that it be admired". Now you cannot say that about Madonna! Someone mentioned post Revolver Beatles. Well, by then, they weren't so interested in money, and perhaps they were then mainly interested in their work being admired. Not that they be admired, because the greatest artists have been unselfconscious, right? That works for me anyway, and that is why the early unknown Lou Reed was indeed an artist, whilst the then already celebrated Andy Warhol to me seems to have been merely a (brilliant) "pop agitator".

    Yeah I know, one man's floor is another man's ceiling, but for chrissakes, this is a Jazz forum, JAZZ dammit, we're only talking about the highest art form known to man! And the aspiring Jazz guitarist knows only too well how incredibly difficult it is to improvise as well as Wes, Tal or George etc. So I beseech you all in honor of all the Jazz greats, please don't demean the legacy of their art by suggesting their thousands of hours of study honing their inspiring genius bears no more merit than the latest pop tart of the month! I hereby bestow all lovers of Jazz the right to feel snooty, highbrow, and yes, elitist! Most jazz folk are too humble while legions of untalented blowhards on lesser musical plateaus win most of the admiration from the mainly unsophisticated public. Some of you might be OK with that, but I most certainly am not.

    Sheesh! Next you be tellin' me Fiddy Cent and P Diddy are culturally more important than Bird, Miles or Trane!! Are we done?

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    [quote=Paul J Edwards;33353]So Rubber Soul was not art

    A sitar on "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)," Greek-like guitar lines on "Michelle" and "Girl," fuzz bass on "Think for Yourself," and a piano made to sound like a harpsichord on the instrumental break of "In My Life". Which was recently listed as the best song ever written in the rock era by Rolling Stone.

    Hmmm, I thought Rubber Soul was after Revolver.

    I just checked the dates on ths Cd's. My mistake. Allow me to ammend my post "Everything before Rubber Soul"

    I don't know why I confused them. Must be age.

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    a lot of you are extremely confused about the nature of art. I suggest you all sit down some time and do some research on the history and application of art, and then you will have your definition. Once you have your definition you will be able to answer these questions about art.

    the definition of art is rigid and has to be. And for all of you proclaiming the subjectivity of art, that it is "all good" or that it is something that cant be pinned down or described; think again.

    what definition are you working from? or are you working from no definition?

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mfarkas
    a lot of you are extremely confused about the nature of art. I suggest you all sit down some time and do some research on the history and application of art, and then you will have your definition. Once you have your definition you will be able to answer these questions about art.

    the definition of art is rigid and has to be. And for all of you proclaiming the subjectivity of art, that it is "all good" or that it is something that cant be pinned down or described; think again.

    what definition are you working from? or are you working from no definition?
    I have... so what is your definition?

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    not to fuel a discussion that's strayed far from it's original ideas, but to me, a well crafted pop song is most definitely a work of art--and "She Loves You" falls into that category.

    to me, Art is the process of and or end result of creative actions. the idea of their being "levels" to it is subjective at best, elitist at worst.

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    not to fuel a discussion that's strayed far from it's original ideas, but to me, a well crafted pop song is most definitely a work of art--and "She Loves You" falls into that category.

    to me, Art is the process of and or end result of creative actions. the idea of their being "levels" to it is subjective at best, elitist at worst.
    The idea of their being no levels to it is foolhardy.... I can dare to suggest that the art of Charlie Parker possesses more merit than the art of P Diddy. What, you wanna have a pissy pseudo-intellectual/philosophical debate about the meaning of the word "merit"? Undergraduate Philosophy and outright sophistry have a lot to answer for. I repeat, if warranted it is OK to feel elitist in defence of our much maligned and misunderstood as well as under-appreciated "super" art form. When did it suddenly become "wrong" to be elitist? After all, the "elite" in music and art does exist, you'd have to be a hippy not to acknowledge that.....

  22. #46

    User Info Menu

    a hippy who likes diddy.

    what are you getting all angry with me for?--i didn't attack you personally.

    "elite" art and music exists only to those who think it is. my sister doesn't care about miles davis. so she's wrong?

    art isn't a competition, and there's not "levels." sorry, i'm standing by that. there's art i like more--but that doesn't make it better. the idea that the beatles suddenly became more important because they dropped acid and put a sitar on a song is bullshit. the idea that i'm somehow more important because i like miles davis instead of the jonas brothers is bullshit.

    elitism is what scares a lot of people away from jazz. it's communal music, and here we are, perpetuating attitudes that exclude people.

    i play jazz, almost exclusively. i paint large abstract canvases. i am nobody important. the world will continue to spin when i pluck my last note or mix my last color.

  23. #47

    User Info Menu

    Well, I wouldn't say I'm angry, I smile as I write (kinda wryly maybe), I get pissed off when I see that Jazz no longer garners the respect it should, particularly among young people. For example, it has become typical to witness this scenario: I youtube up and coming Jazz guitarists, then read comments underneath. Jazz lovers get how "good" the guy is, suggesting strengths and weaknesses (all subjective obviously), but the young "shred" brigade chime in with comments like, "wow, pretty good for jazz, he should try metal, he's almost fast enough"! Now how many times do I have to read moronic responses like that and cop it on the chin? Why don't the GP appreciate greatness like they used to? Even non musicians of the day knew Mozart was a superior composer to most others at the time, and peasants understood the greatness of Shakespeare. Jazz deserves more respect and you know it. If we stopped being humble, we might get noticed, not because we want the attention, but because we want Jazz to get it and go on getting it.

  24. #48

    User Info Menu

    As I said, it's just INSANE to think there are no objective standards at all in art or that there shouldn't be.

    Here, not to mention other names and controversial matters: I decided to start playing the sitar the other day. I will memorize one melodic passage or something. Am I now on the same "level" as Ravi Shankar? That's idiotic. Let's stop joking around.

    Some foolish clown who tosses red dye into the Trevi Fountain is not on the same level as Michaelangelo!!

    I just wrote a short poem about toilet paper.
    Here it is:

    I like toilet paper.
    You like toliet paper.
    Toilet paper is useful and good.
    Thank you all.


    I WANT, no I DEMAND that this BS to be recognized alongside the work of
    Shakespeare. Enough already.

  25. #49

    User Info Menu

    Mr. B

    I have to repectfully disagree with you about levels of art. I believe they exist even to the point where the artist himself has gone through levels. No artist just picks up his instrumnet or brush and ZAP he's an artist.

    Jimmy D'Aquisto built guitars. One day he became an artist. The subjective part to me is at what point he became an artist. To me it's the same with every art form.

    I also don't think that by assigning levels to art we become elitist. Not everybody can see, understand or appreciate the arts and even among those who do, some people can see it and understand it on deeper levels than others. That doesn't make them, elitist.

    As per your last comment, I sometimes feel the same in that , in the scope of the world, as artists , we're not curing cancer or ending world hunger, but perhaps we can just improve the condition of this place by contributing some music and what have you. Don't underestimate that.

  26. #50

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    Well, I wouldn't say I'm angry, I smile as I write (kinda wryly maybe), I get pissed off when I see that Jazz no longer garners the respect it should, particularly among young people. For example, it has become typical to witness this scenario: I youtube up and coming Jazz guitarists, then read comments underneath. Jazz lovers get how "good" the guy is, suggesting strengths and weaknesses (all subjective obviously), but the young "shred" brigade chime in with comments like, "wow, pretty good for jazz, he should try metal, he's almost fast enough"! Now how many times do I have to read moronic responses like that and cop it on the chin? Why don't the GP appreciate greatness like they used to? Even non musicians of the day knew Mozart was a superior composer to most others at the time, and peasants understood the greatness of Shakespeare. Jazz deserves more respect and you know it. If we stopped being humble, we might get noticed, not because we want the attention, but because we want Jazz to get it and go on getting it.
    I see art as a triad: Medium, transmitter and receiver. In the case of a musician: Instrument, player, listener. Take one away and its all gone. So...IMO, music is an offering to people. If the people don't understand the offering, maybe its time the artist did some serious self-examination. Or ... I suppose it is also possible to become arrogant and elitist and simply blame the reciever for failed communication.

    To me, elitism and arrogance speaks more about an artist's personal weakness than the quality of their music. Parker and the rest were not elitist, they were creative inovators who lost their audiance for a number of reasons. I think they would have liked nothing more than to see their music win and retain popularity.

    Ironically, it is popularity that breeds arrogance and when it wains, some find comfort in being elitists, catering to the so called "sophisticated" listener, others in humility and an understanding that an artists gift is perishable. IMO, there is more potential for growth, both musically and personaly, with humility.