The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Posts 76 to 100 of 120
  1. #76

    User Info Menu

    Big gaps in my Rollins knowledge, but I am familiar with his late 50s trio work, Village Vanguard and Way Out West. Also the album with Coleman Hawkins, which is an interesting contrast in styles. Tenor Madness, The Bridge, others - I have heard them, need to re-listen. The sax-bass-drums trio without piano, I love that sound. (I would have welcomed hearing Wes without a piano player, but it must never have been his choice.)

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #77

    User Info Menu

    In alphabetical order...

    David Grisman
    Claire Martin
    Charles Mingus
    Thelonious Monk
    Jaco Pastorius

  4. #78

    User Info Menu

    Bud Powell
    Thelonious Monk
    Bird
    Kenny Dorham
    Hank Mobley
    .............
    Plus too many more for the list.

  5. #79

    User Info Menu

    These are not necessarily in any order of importance:
    Gene Ammons
    Dexter Gordon
    Joey D'Franscesco
    Chet Baker
    Johnny Hartman

    Good Playing . . . Marinero

  6. #80

    User Info Menu

    Love seeing our city's beloved "Hankenstein" getting so much love here (Hank Mobley). We try to keep his memory alive by playing some of his tunes every gig.

  7. #81

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by henryrobinett
    John Coltrane
    Mingus
    Chick Corea
    Jarrett
    Freddie Hubbard
    Sonny Rollins
    Clifford Brown
    Ah! I had to go back and search for my reply. I still 100% agree with my three years ago self. And I’d add that these folks preempt any influential guitar players, I think.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #82

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Irez87

    I gotta give a shout out to Henry. Out of everyone who I've heard who lists Coltrane as an influence, you can REALLY hear 'trane in Henry's playing!
    Wow. As you may know I haven’t been around participating in some years. I just saw this. Thank you! That’s awesome. I do hear Coltrane in my head as a primary influence. I just hear Trans like lines.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #83

    User Info Menu

    Can't believe I'm the 1st to say Max Roach, the most lyrical, melodic drummer. Which of course leads to Clifford Brown with his rapid fire melodic runs at an age that's younger than my youngest daughter. Then there's Jaco, the tragic beauty, depth, dynamics. So heavy.....

  10. #84

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by henryrobinett
    Wow. As you may know I haven’t been around participating in some years. I just saw this. Thank you! That’s awesome. I do hear Coltrane in my head as a primary influence. I just hear Trans like lines.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Hi Henry!

  11. #85

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JCat
    I've read the thread from the top. Current standings:

    1 Miles Davis
    2 Bill Evans
    3 John Coltrane
    4 Thelonious Monk
    5 Dexter Gordon
    6 Charlie Parker
    7 Charles Mingus
    8 Sonny Rollins
    9 Stan Getz
    10 Louis Armstrong

    My wife (in this context a paraphrase for the average middle age pop consumer) could have made this list by random name dropping. These are just very well known names in jazz and for good reasons. We are all influenced by these guys one way or another.

    MIke Moreno said "People don't know what influence is. They think they know, but they don't. You should be able to play the music created by the guys that inspired you." ..."Think about your influences. -Are they really an influence to you? Can everybody in this room get up and for 3hours, without repeating themselves, play the music by their favorite composers?" ..."You start by learning pop-tunes by ear. You got to make use of the inspiration to take it to the next level. I've been learning from what I've been listening to. Listening to records, copying note by note. Then I started to listen to music without guitar and for me that was the shit, much more than any jazz record made by a guitar player."

    Before we move on, let's just stop and reflect over the fact that we are talking about non-guitar jazz musicians in this thread. I'm personally more influenced by the writers, arrangers and producers, rather than the performers. But rest assured I've been copying my guitar heroes note by note (and some players of other instruments too for that matter).

    An artist inspires someone to pick up and learn to play an instrument. The music I like to listen to influences my perception of music, regardless if I plan to make it part of my repertoire or not. The more I play, the less time I spend listening to records/performances. The more time I spend composing, the less time I spend studying other peoples work. So I need to recharge every now and then. The cycle typically goes; 1. I look for inspiration and absorb material made by my influence and train my ears; 2. I express myself (practice/gig/compose/record); 3. Recharge/look for new influences/train ears, and so on.
    That Moreno interview/masterclass reminds me of the fact that I was having a conversation with a colleague on a gig yesterday musicians - him saying can graduate jazz college with flying colours with a repertoire of about four standards. They can solo like Moreno but they can’t play the gig (if it ain’t their project.)

    (I mean they might learn all the hard Trane tunes like Satellite and 26-2 but conveniently overlook all the amazing playing Trane did on old standards. Jazz as crossword puzzle.)

    All the actually good players I know, however modern, can do this. Because they’ve been on the bandstand. But it would be nice if the education system prepared them a bit more. Moreno talks about the fact that the more tunes you learn the faster you learn tunes. This really important.

    Looking back that’s the advice I’d give to the younger me, but I think I’d have ignored it lol. I’m not the best in terms of rep but I try to learn the music I get turned on by and I don’t have reach for the iReal for every other tune.

    There are few more enjoyable ways to spend your practice time than with real music that you love.

  12. #86

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    That Moreno interview/masterclass reminds me of the fact that I was having a conversation with a colleague on a gig yesterday musicians - him saying can graduate jazz college with flying colours with a repertoire of about four standards. They can solo like Moreno but they can’t play the gig (if it ain’t their project.)

    (I mean they might learn all the hard Trane tunes like Satellite and 26-2 but conveniently overlook all the amazing playing Trane did on old standards. Jazz as crossword puzzle.)

    All the actually good players I know, however modern, can do this. Because they’ve been on the bandstand. But it would be nice if the education system prepared them a bit more. Moreno talks about the fact that the more tunes you learn the faster you learn tunes. This really important.

    Looking back that’s the advice I’d give to the younger me, but I think I’d have ignored it lol. I’m not the best in terms of rep but I try to learn the music I get turned on by and I don’t have reach for the iReal for every other tune.

    There are few more enjoyable ways to spend your practice time than with real music that you love.
    Young players tend to focus on technique and general music fundamentals, it's reasonable I think. At the same time the song book is important to get command of the language, there has to be heart and brain.

    I suppose some people like improvisation, some like composition and most of us like a bit of both. Which reminds me of this quote:

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhythmisking
    There was a time period where jazz was popular, and jazz music was a part of popular music. But my point is that compositions such as the Ellington/Strayhorn tunes; indisputably "jazz songs", were first and foremost beautiful compositions. The compositional intention was primarily to create a beautiful song, not quickly dash off a framework to blow over with melody almost as an afterthought.

    Great iconic jazz musicians from the bop era forward were and are celebrated (and studied) for their improvisations first, and their compositions second -if at all. Certainly exceptions (Ellington) abound; no doubt. But I'm of the opinion that the evolution of jazz as a genre ended up in the weeds (as far as it being popular music) when the importance of song composition fell away under the dazzle and sparkle of expertly executed vertical improvisation.

    I believe a large part of the reason iconic masters such as Parker, Hawkins, Young, etc are perceived as being as great as they are is because their work took place at the overlap of horizontal and vertical improv styles. They grew up and were influenced by players whose improvisations were based on a song's melody and tended to be thematic melody-like lines that moved through changes. As they started formulating their lines referencing the changes more strongly, they still had the foundation of the primacy of a cohesive melodic thread guiding them. As newer, contemporary players study them, they concentrate largely on the chord/scale elements of their playing and also view their own improvisation primarily in terms of scalar relationships to chords, and my assumption is that this is the emphasis of what is generally taught academically in jazz studies: Use the correct patterns over the individual chords as quickly and accurately as possible and bingo, you're playing jazz!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhythmisking
    Jazz went from being an illegitimate interpretive style, to it's own musical genre, to a musical orthodoxy which can now be studied academically alongside classical music at the Doctorate level. If Jazz Studies students spent more time studying great songwriting, and a lot less time scrutinizing, analyzing and emulating the improvisations of The Great Jazz Icons of Yesteryear, there might be a different understanding of why jazz is no longer popular music.

  13. #87

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JCat
    Young players tend to focus on technique and general music fundamentals, it's reasonable I think. At the same time the song book is important to get command of the language, there has to be heart and brain.

    I suppose some people like improvisation, some like composition and most of us like a bit of both. Which reminds me of this quote:
    Hmmm. Yeah, it may seem reasonable, but I wonder if it actually is .... I think what might be unhelpful is the idea that music fundamentals and technique are separate from actual music.

    This reminds of an interview with Molly Tuttle who has bags of chops (and a Berklee grad to boot) and said she acquired these skills just by playing tunes. Obviously you won’t find a better country flat picking drill than a fiddle tune, or simply trying to fill in the chords when playing solo...

    otoh you won’t find a better bop picking etude than a Parker head.

    An overly reductionist approach to the arts maybe? You know all those great players who say ‘I’m not a book person’, ‘I never worked on etudes’ or ‘I just played music’?

    Thing is you can solo like a mf, but if you don’t know at least some tunes and can’t accompany in a simple an supportive way, you will be passed over for gigs by people who have these skills (ie ‘show maturity’) and some pick them up super early, but for the others...

    This is requisite for making a living playing jazz....

    Know plenty of great young soloists who I cannot dep gigs to.

    As Hal Galper puts it, the aim of practice should be to get you onto the bandstand. But, as jazz increasingly is about the colleges... glad to say I live somewhere where there is a bandstand, however imperfect.

    Perhaps it unrealistic to expect colleges to provide this type of learning.

  14. #88

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Hmmm. Yeah, it may seem reasonable, but I wonder if it actually is .... I think what might be unhelpful is the idea that music fundamentals and technique are separate from actual music.

    This reminds of an interview with Molly Tuttle who has bags of chops (and a Berklee grad to boot) and said she acquired these skills just by playing tunes. Obviously you won’t find a better country flat picking drill than a fiddle tune, or simply trying to fill in the chords when playing solo...

    otoh you won’t find a better bop picking etude than a Parker head.

    An overly reductionist approach to the arts maybe? You know all those great players who say ‘I’m not a book person’, ‘I never worked on etudes’ or ‘I just played music’?

    Thing is you can solo like a mf, but if you don’t know at least some tunes and can’t accompany in a simple an supportive way, you will be passed over for gigs by people who have these skills (ie ‘show maturity’) and some pick them up super early, but for the others...

    This is requisite for making a living playing jazz....

    Know plenty of great young soloists who I cannot dep gigs to.

    As Hal Galper puts it, the aim of practice should be to get you onto the bandstand. But, as jazz increasingly is about the colleges... glad to say I live somewhere where there is a bandstand, however imperfect.

    Perhaps it unrealistic to expect colleges to provide this type of learning.
    Yes and I'm once again reminded that most of our influences had something to say while still in their 20s. But 1959 was 60 years ago, and meanwhile the music landscape has changed. It's almost like having asked Wes to learn songs from 1899 and older. Maybe he did, but he surely didn't have any Real Book of several hundred standards from that period. But agreed, I strongly feel that studying Jazz without addressing a list of important standards would be like studying classical music without addressing works of the old masters.

    You know I agree about music and passion, but we all need to start somewhere, right? Students first have to find and explore the music, get to know it. They don't play Jazz everyday on the radio anymore like they did when Wes grew up. It's not pop anymore. Students have a bag of contemporary pop influences at the time they start studying Jazz and this will be reflected in the music of tomorrow. Anyway, I like to assume that anyone who decides to study Jazz also love the music. Most important is to learn to play the music I love. Real Book and records are great sources.

  15. #89

    User Info Menu

    1) Bill Evans (piano)
    2) Mike Mainieri (vibes)
    3) Jeff Andrews (bass)
    4) Charlie Banacos (piano)
    5) Sonny Rollins (sax)
    Last edited by Pete Sklaroff; 08-04-2019 at 11:08 AM. Reason: mistake

  16. #90

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JCat
    Yes and I'm once again reminded that most of our influences had something to say while still in their 20s. But 1959 was 60 years ago, and meanwhile the music landscape has changed. It's almost like having asked Wes to learn songs from 1899 and older. Maybe he did, but he surely didn't have any Real Book of several hundred standards from that period. But agreed, I strongly feel that studying Jazz without addressing a list of important standards would be like studying classical music without addressing works of the old masters.

    You know I agree about music and passion, but we all need to start somewhere, right? Students first have to find and explore the music, get to know it. They don't play Jazz everyday on the radio anymore like they did when Wes grew up. It's not pop anymore. Students have a bag of contemporary pop influences at the time they start studying Jazz and this will be reflected in the music of tomorrow. Anyway, I like to assume that anyone who decides to study Jazz also love the music. Most important is to learn to play the music I love. Real Book and records are great sources.
    I’m not sure what the Real Book has to do with anything? If anything it’s fossilised the jazz repertoire. A lot of the standards in there are not much use on gigs anyway.

    There’s nothing wrong with contemporary (or at least more recent pop .... except, play me a song.

    One guy, I suggested he play some Radiohead (his favourite band, with changes and melodies. Knives Out is a good blowing vehicle for instance.) - looked at me like I’d grown an extra head.

    I think there’s a lot of kids out there who think jazz = jamming on vamps.

  17. #91

    User Info Menu

    Nina Simone
    Grover Washington Jr.
    Chet Baker
    Count Basie
    George Duke

  18. #92

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    I’m not sure what the Real Book has to do with anything? If anything it’s fossilised the jazz repertoire. A lot of the standards in there are not much use on gigs anyway.

    There’s nothing wrong with contemporary (or at least more recent pop .... except, play me a song.

    One guy, I suggested he play some Radiohead (his favourite band, with changes and melodies. Knives Out is a good blowing vehicle for instance.) - looked at me like I’d grown an extra head.

    I think there’s a lot of kids out there who think jazz = jamming on vamps.
    When we talk about jazz standards, chances are we'll find them in Real book.

    -What if the music I love is not in Real book? Then I use records, spotify or similar archives.

    -Are there important jazz compositions not included among 1000 songs in the Real book archive, so important that students should learn them in college? I don't think so, but it's not my call.

    But people learn and play the music they love, whether it's in Real Book or not, right. But if players don't speak the same language we can't expect them to find each other on the band stand. That's the beauty of standards. Without standards we would have to jam on vamps.

    -Are there other standards than Jazz standards? of course! There are Beatles standards and AC/DC standards and Country standards and Soul standards and Blues standards etc etc.

    According to the philosopher Nicholas Payton, Jazz died in 1959, meaning whatever we play in 2019, it ain't jazz and that's cool, because according to him Jazz is dead and uncool, it's no pop anymore.

    Above I've listed my main Jazz influences, non-guitar players. If I was to include the guys that really got my ears in my teens, the list would look different. Donald Fagen would probably still be on the list, he's all Jazz to me and cool since I'm less dogmatic than N. Payton (that happens to be an excellent Jazz trumpet player in our time afaik. Maybe he thinks that we talk too much about players long gone and forget the ones that are alive and kicking.)

  19. #93

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JCat
    When we talk about jazz standards, chances are we'll find them in Real book.

    -What if the music I love is not in Real book? Then I use records, spotify or similar archives.

    -Are there important jazz compositions not included among 1000 songs in the Real book archive, so important that students should learn them in college? I don't think so, but it's not my call.
    I'm not going to get into the many problems with the RB as a source. It's fine if you an amateur...

    The sooner budding professional players get into learning music properly and in depth the better.

    But people learn and play the music they love, whether it's in Real Book or not, right. But if players don't speak the same language we can't expect them to find each other on the band stand. That's the beauty of standards. Without standards we would have to jam on vamps.
    Some of the standards kind of are vamps... But that's another story! ;-)

    There's a reason there are standard rep lists, but really my repertoire I learned at first by getting roasted not knowing tunes, and learning those, and now I drive the process more myself learning tunes I like.

    It's all based around the community really. There are different tunes in vogue now at jams than there were 15 years ago, but you can spot, say, the Guildhall students, because they all play the same small repertoire.

    -Are there other standards than Jazz standards? of course! There are Beatles standards and AC/DC standards and Country standards and Soul standards and Blues standards etc etc.

    According to the philosopher Nicholas Payton, Jazz died in 1959, meaning whatever we play in 2019, it ain't jazz and that's cool, because according to him Jazz is dead and uncool, it's no pop anymore.

    Above I've listed my main Jazz influences, non-guitar players. If I was to include the guys that really got my ears in my teens, the list would look different. Donald Fagen would probably still be on the list, he's all Jazz to me and cool since I'm less dogmatic than N. Payton (that happens to be an excellent Jazz trumpet player in our time afaik. Maybe he thinks that we talk too much about players long gone and forget the ones that are alive and kicking.)
    Payton's great. Best trumpeter and he knows it.

    Yeah, the big problem is that if you want to learn standards harmony, you are looking at learning a few hundred tunes of that era (1920s-50s) and you are done (as Frank Vignola puts it) - obviously there's been 60 years of both jazz and pop music since, and contemporary jazz uses different changes, often non-functional.

    Harmony in pop is often vestigal.... I remember myself how alien GASB functional harmony (let alone bop!) was to someone reared on rock music....

    This results in a diversity of repertoire - as well as Gershwin and Cole Porter, you have Steely Dan, Beatles, Stevie, Metheny, Wayne Shorter and so on... So teaching practices have to cover that to... Possibly one reason CST has been so successful is that it can basically get you through ... And is no doubt why CST tends to talk about colouristic harmony rather than the way chords move... Cos chords move different one decade to the other... .
    I don't think that matters, so long as there's a song. Harmony isn't that important.

    NY cats seem to have everything dialled in... but I wonder how much harder they have to work on this than the bop players..

  20. #94

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    I'm not going to get into the many problems with the RB as a source. It's fine if you an amateur...

    The sooner budding professional players get into learning music properly and in depth the better.



    Some of the standards kind of are vamps... But that's another story! ;-)

    There's a reason there are standard rep lists, but really my repertoire I learned at first by getting roasted not knowing tunes, and learning those, and now I drive the process more myself learning tunes I like.

    It's all based around the community really. There are different tunes in vogue now at jams than there were 15 years ago, but you can spot, say, the Guildhall students, because they all play the same small repertoire.



    Payton's great. Best trumpeter and he knows it.

    Yeah, the big problem is that if you want to learn standards harmony, you are looking at learning a few hundred tunes of that era (1920s-50s) and you are done (as Frank Vignola puts it) - obviously there's been 60 years of both jazz and pop music since, and contemporary jazz uses different changes, often non-functional.

    Harmony in pop is often vestigal.... I remember myself how alien GASB functional harmony (let alone bop!) was to someone reared on rock music....

    This results in a diversity of repertoire - as well as Gershwin and Cole Porter, you have Steely Dan, Beatles, Stevie, Metheny, Wayne Shorter and so on... So teaching practices have to cover that to... Possibly one reason CST has been so successful is that it can basically get you through ... And is no doubt why CST tends to talk about colouristic harmony rather than the way chords move... Cos chords move different one decade to the other... .
    I don't think that matters, so long as there's a song. Harmony isn't that important.

    NY cats seem to have everything dialled in... but I wonder how much harder they have to work on this than the bop players..
    I'm thinking of Real Book as a source of tunes, headlines if you like. We're in agreement regarding the problems arising from using RB as the only source, never reading below the headlines. When I add a standard to my repertoire I typically listen to about 10 different recordings. There's the original composition, the original recording followed by later interpretations and arrangement variations.

    Yeah, the contemporary jazz scene is local (or tied to a sub community). It's hard to spread the news as the air is crowded with everything else; a myriad of genres and sub genres.

  21. #95

    User Info Menu

    1) Miles Davis
    2) Chet Baker
    3) Billie Holiday
    4) Cannonball
    5) John Medeski

  22. #96

    User Info Menu

    Ornette Coleman
    Thelonious Monk
    Steve Lacy
    Anthony Braxton
    Charles Mingus

  23. #97

    User Info Menu

    Miles Davis
    Chet Baker
    Charlie Parker
    Ed Bickert
    John Coltrane

  24. #98

    User Info Menu

    I'm not good enough to claim I'm influenced by anyone but...

    1) Bird
    2) Sonny Rollins
    3) Lester Young
    4) Dexter Gordon
    5) Keith Jarrett

  25. #99

    User Info Menu

    1) All time it's T Monk. Like half his catalog is in my head. I like how he mixes tradish playing with adventurous harmonies and he was a great composer.
    2) Jimmy Smith. I really like his aggressive use of rhythm. Not the most lyrical player ever, but it really teaches you to use rhythm.
    3) Charlie Parker. I like how he outlines the chords in his solos.
    4) Milt Jackson. His lines have a really great combo of rhythmic momentum and catchy and melodic phrases.
    5) Bill Evans. Can lack an earthy sound of the more bluesy greats, but is silly good at times. His autumn leaves is one of the best recorded tunes and solos of all time imo.

  26. #100

    User Info Menu

    In order of influence:


    1. Paul Desmond
    2. Bill Evans
    3. Chet Baker
    4. Stan Getz
    5. Bix Beiderbecke


    Desmond is my favorite musician bar none, above guitar players and all other musicians, dead or alive, on any instrument in any genre.