"Why do modern jazz musicians all sound the same?"

[pamosmusic]

The above is like saying Faulkner and Joyce Carol Oates and Thomas Pynchon were mere footnotes to John Bunyan and Daniel Defoe. And I realize you’re probably being facetious…

yeah but they’d all say they’re footnotes to Shakespeare

actually faulkner would probably say he was the bards second coming but still

[Doctor Jeff]

Yes, facetious. Whitehead's quote was running through my mind. ("The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.")

Comments like that are why I come to this forum!

”Immanual Kant play jazz fer shite on the guitar, but Frederick plays really Nietsche!”

[Cunamara]

Tbh ‘sounding the same’ is relative.

It’s easy to see why someone who didn’t listen to a lot of classical music might confuse Mozart with Haydn for instance. They are similar stylistically, but these days I can tell which is which.

(18the century YouTube video - All these Galant composers sound the same! Clearly their music is rubbish and dumbed down. I blame the baleful influence of the Neapolitan school and the decline of the learned style. Endless modulations and not a jot of real counterpoint. Can you believe Durante isn’t even teaching fugues???? bah humbug.)

To me many distortion pedals sound the same, but there’s people who are super picky about them and lots of YouTube videos picking apart the difference.

So ears can be honed.

Well that pretty much nailed it!

And art is, of course, subjective because it's art rather than science. The creation of the artist becomes a vehicle for the projection of the audience in terms of emotional value. It does not matter whether the art is music, painting, sculpture, poetry, etc.; what the audience brings to the experience is at least as important as what the artist creates.

"Commercial" art is relatively easy for the audience to make that emotive connection; "art" art can be a bit more challenging. Bebop was harder for most audiences to connect to then the swing dance music that preceded it (because of rhythmic, harmonic and melodic complexity) and was significantly less popular, arguably contributing to the ongoing commercial decline in terms of audience- even while maintaining and arguably developing artistic excellence. On the other hand, audience members who could develop their ears and processes around the music are rewarded for those efforts.

I have limited understanding for most non-auditory forms of art such as painting or sculpture (I consider poetry and literature to fall within the auditory arts domain, even if the primary interface is visual, because there is still imaginative hearing going on while reading), but I would think that the same thing is true there: audience members who can develop their perceptive and cognitive understanding of painting and sculpture are rewarded for those efforts. The perceptual psychology research of James J Gibson and Eleanor Gibson clearly showed that such development is readily acquired and that this ability is probably innate in humans. Repeated exposure to the perceptual experience tends to improve perception and understanding all by itself; providing a cognitive roadmap to the art form can probably enhance this.

In an interview somewhere on the interwebs with Jane Hall, she noted that she would have Jim read her manuscripts about psychoanalysis and make suggestions because he had an understanding of form and structure, even if he didn't know much about the subject matter itself. She found that input valuable. Jim himself talked about the value of looking at paintings and other forms of art in terms of helping develop his music.

When we do "transcriptions" (most of us don't transcribe, unless we're actually writing down the music we're listening to- which is what transcription means rather than copying licks etc.), the real value there is not copying the lick but developing our listening and apperceptive mass about the music.

[Cunamara]

Good point. When it comes to jazz guitar and the 50s, Jim Hall and Howard Roberts are good examples. Their playing on their first albums sounded like the well-established players like Farlow and Raney etc. But later on, they developed their own unique approach.

And those albums were, I think, recorded using the same guitar (Jim got his 1954 ES-175 from Howard Roberts). Yet soon after, Jim Hall did not sound anything like his friend Tal Farlow.

[Litterick]

Again, it's not cancelling anyone. As though by not listening to something I am thereby cancelling it! Such absurdity.

I reject the premise of the video - it's like if there was a video called 'Why John Coltrane sucks'. I wouldn't watch it.

You are disrespectful to Mark, who started the thread and posted the video in the hope of prompting a "worthwhile discussion", and to the other participants. Commenting without first watching the video does not contribute to the discussion. It is boorish behaviour. But it seems you are not alone.

[James W]

You are disrespectful to Mark, who started the thread and posted the video in the hope of prompting a "worthwhile discussion", and to the other participants. Commenting without first watching the video does not contribute to the discussion. It is boorish behaviour. But it seems you are not alone.

Do you think modern jazz musicians all sound the same?

[Christian Miller]

Tbf Litterick may have a point.

OTOH I’m bored and want to argue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

Tbf Litterick may have a point.

OTOH I’m bored and want to argue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Was the topic individual mistakes by transcribing shellac records instead of transcription software already discussed in this thread? Please elaborate.

[Alter]

Like say Mike Moreno, Peter Bernstein and Lage Lund?

[Christian Miller]

Like say Mike Moreno, Peter Bernstein and Lage Lund?

All identical, which is to say they all sound just like Mary Halvorson and Tim Miller


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kris]

I once heard that John Scofield plays semi-hollow guitars because he doesn't want to sound like musicians who play hollow body guitars...

[Stevebol]

Tbh ‘sounding the same’ is relative.

It’s easy to see why someone who didn’t listen to a lot of classical music might confuse Mozart with Haydn for instance. They are similar stylistically, but these days I can tell which is which.

(18the century YouTube video - All these Galant composers sound the same! Clearly their music is rubbish and dumbed down. I blame the baleful influence of the Neapolitan school and the decline of the learned style. Endless modulations and not a jot of real counterpoint. Can you believe Durante isn’t even teaching fugues???? bah humbug.)

To me many distortion pedals sound the same, but there’s people who are super picky about them and lots of YouTube videos picking apart the difference.

So ears can be honed.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Get a Tumnus. It's versatile;

At 67 yo my sense of tonality is much different than younger musicians. There's a big difference in the processing power of a Line 6 Pod Go than units that came out just after that.
I use a Boss GT-1000 Core with a Kingsley Page in the FX loop. I want the sound of a 4 X 10 Fender Bassman with Jensen Alnico speakers and it does the trick.
Jazz musicians might not be overly concerned with the resonance of the low E string but I'm quite anal about it.

[ragman1]

[kris]

Good video.... and now everything is clear.....:-)
I would add number 4...individuality, talent and charisma

[Christian Miller]

Is it a moral failing that I’m not especially interested watching videos on ‘ten reasons why something that isn’t true is the case.’?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jameslovestal]

Good video.... and now everything is clear.....:-)
I would add number 4...individuality, talent and charisma

Wouldn't that be #1 as to why jazz musicians don't all sound the same?

[Oscar67]

A lot of music in any genre sounds the same to me. Have to sieve the gold out of the mud, which isn’t that hard. The first band I adored since I was a toddler was ABBA. Still do. That kind of set the bar. Writing and performing a song like I Let The Music Speak is quite a different matter than blazing over chords (unless you’re Pat Metheny perhaps).

With jazz, specifically, I have trouble staying awake during a set where everyone takes solos in every tune. I don’t think of tunes as platforms to burn over. I gravitate towards singers, towards swing, towards the song. I’ll take an old Sinatra record anytime. Or Paul Desmond’s albums with Jim Hall and Ed Bickert. That’s sacred ground. A few artists can improvise their butt off and sound totally unique and still serve the song. Those are few and far between IMHO but that’s magical.

[kris]

Wouldn't that be #1 as to why jazz musicians don't all sound the same?

Without these qualities, there would be no true artists...
It's not that simple.
A large number of young people study at music universities...whether each of them will be a significant artist in the future?

[kris]

Or maybe we just need to ask the question: what is jazz guitar sound?

[jameslovestal]

Without these qualities, there would be no true artists...
It's not that simple.
A large number of young people study at music universities...whether each of them will be a significant artist in the future?

Sorry, still not following you.

This most recent video posted 3 reasons this guitarist felt many younger jazz guitarists might all sounded the same:

#1: Equipment used (mainly effects like delay).

#2: having the same (or very similar) musical education

#3: watching videos of other jazz guitarist instead of just hearing them and using their ear: when one watches someone else, they tend to use the same physical approach they see; when one just uses their ear, they use their own physical approach to achieve a similar sound.

While I agree that individuality, talent and charisma is a major factor that separates one musician from another, I don't see how that is #4 to the above list of 3 items discussed in the video.

[ragman1]

younger jazz guitarist

Exactly, not all.

[pamosmusic]

Is it a moral failing that I’m not especially interested watching videos on ‘ten reasons why something that isn’t true is the case.’?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is it also worth mentioning that this guys playing at the beginning of the video is not especially interesting in its own right?

Call me crazy but if you’re going to do an “everyone is lame now” video, you better bring the heat.

[jameslovestal]

Exactly, not all.

I edited that sentence by adding "many" and "might": 3 reasons this guitarist felt many younger jazz guitarists might all sounded the same.

Note that I found #3 (video) very interesting. I never really thought about that angle, but it makes total sense.

[pamosmusic]

What I will say after watching the video is that, if the premise were true, these would strike me as compelling reasons why.

As it happens, I don’t think the premise is true at all, and not coincidentally, I don’t really think any of his reasons happen to be true in isolation.

The equipment one is maybe the truest. There is a certain combination of delay and reverb and whatnot that can be common with a certain era of jazz guitarist, but I’m not sure why this would mean less diversity in sound than when there were like four guitars to play.

The part about learning visually is interesting but honestly kind of nonsense. Are there people who learn stuff from watching some YouTuber play it? Sure. But are we talking about how a bunch of kids in their bedrooms sound the same or are we talking about how the major players of today sound the same? If it’s the latter, then they’re learning by listening for sure. If it’s the former, then that’s just not that interesting to say. Every serious young player I know who learns from recordings does it by listening. I mean I guess it’s cool that there’s video of Jim Hall and you could try to emulate him visually too. But I don’t know. Most of the classic stuff is like …. On YouTube but you’re still just listening.

And the part about not listening to other instruments is nonsense too. Don’t even know what to say about that. It’s cool that a guy who’s into Bird can also check out Guthrie Govan and maybe actually learn the chops to play that saxophone stuff, but the idea that they’re just learning from guitar players and not other instruments seems silly. I’d need to see some evidence for that one, otherwise it’s his anecdotal experience and mine is completely contradictory.

[Bobby Timmons]

The guy who made the video is a foo of foos.