-
1.Are there any active concerting musicians here?
Originally Posted by Lobomov
Yes, I know a few.
I know that they follow everything and they know what is right.
-
12-12-2021 11:15 AM
-
-
When I say I don’t know, I mean don’t know. If you want to do some actual research into this I’ll see you in a few years. Originally Posted by Lobomov
I googled the gender thing in jazz fans before posting, just to be sure ... and I know, a quick google search isn't something scientific
OK, I tried to make it a bit joking by referencing the "Too many notes" from Amadeus
But what is for certain is that for whatever reason, women don't really go to hear instrumental jazz concerts ... Do they listen to Rachmaninoff solo piano works? ... I dunno, but I do know that the moment you take out singing from jazz then you loose a lot of female audiences.
Will these women stick around if you do two choruses of singing followed by 10 choruses of soloing?
Actual question .. You're the one that used to gig regularly before the pandemic
I assume when ever it was 50/50 that you're where not the main attraction, but just background for whatever was .. Be it something social or getting drunk/laid in your electro-swing days?
My statement saying getting the women to come make a better business case isn't something I have to defend, right?
Anyways .. Here is another guess:
I have a good friend that is a classically trained singer that used to do the musical scene, but for the last 20 years she been teaching as that is a more pleasant life.
Her observation is that for many people hearing music they're not used to is not particularly pleasant. Having briefly sung opera her claim is that it's a mistake to take people to hear an opera without exposing them to it on record first. Let their brains get used to the contour and melodies of the performance first, so they can relax an enjoy it live. If you don't do that it's just random noise and thus pain.
That might be a different explanation. The intricacies of classical music are usually always written down and never subject to abrupt change, the intricacies of jazz are not. Small adjustments in interpretation to perfect a piece is not the same as drastically changing it every single time.
That there is a tendency for women to prefer fixed structures over men that are more inclined just go with the flow and take their chances might be a thing?
other than that, it seems to me musicians tend to be more amenable to new music than non musicians. Within this group I’ve not seen much difference, but as I say that’s anecdotal.
I would say most ‘normal’ people tend to like music because of social factors? Again this is substantiated on nothing much really.
-
The golden age of music is always 50 years ago
-
We Want Miles!
Miles brought young musicians to his band.
I mean his last creative period.
As I remember Joey DeFrancesco ...he had to have a guardian because he was 17 years old.
-
The tendency of women to avoid hostile environments might be more important. Even today, few women work in jazz, so it is hardly surprising that few women support it. Originally Posted by Lobomov
-
(Not that Cecil doesn’t do other stuff apart from raging bop guitar)
-
“OTOH I would say that jazz values sheer technique now in a way I don’t think it did quite so much in the 60s.”
I would put that down to “classicalization” of jazz education. My impression is that in earlier times, one might develop phenomenal technique but that this was a byproduct of being able to play what the gig called for. These days, with conservatory learning replacing gig apprenticeship, there seems to be more emphasis on mastering technique for its own sake. It’s almost as though one has to be a master (technician) before one can be an apprentice (musician).
-
There is probably something to that, but it's also true that the history of many of the historical jazz figures includes; (1) years of childhood instrumental lessons/study, and (2) a very intense adult study period that enabled them to meet the demands of being a strong soloist. Originally Posted by L50EF15
No way. Name the top conservatories where the instructors teach that. Originally Posted by L50EF15
Even though jazz is not nearly as popular as it was prior to the early sixties, there is more competition now, and that raises the bar. The jazz schools have evolved and grown in number. By now we've all heard generations of virtuosos. Band leaders have come to expect that they can recruit at least a few standouts from the schools. Originally Posted by L50EF15
So, expectations are indeed higher.
-
What I love about the younger guys is that they are all fully conversant with (or absolutely passionate about) bop and can flat out play it, but they have a natural (ie, not contrived) fusion thing going on and will mix it up with any other genre they feel like. That freedom is extremely appealing to my ears.
-
I have the impression that young guitarists have a similar sound. Originally Posted by Peter C
I do not know why it is like that.
When it comes to jazz, Jesse van Ruller is a leading guitarist.
This is my opinion.
-
Interesting that 4 pages have gone by without a mention of the most successful jazz guitarist in history, Pat Metheny. In fact, as so many off us old farts learned from Charlie Christian and Jim Hall and Wes Montgomery, et al, the younger generation had the influences of rock and roll in choosing the guitar and Pat Metheny in pursuing the jazz/composition angles. Metheny, Scofield, Goodrick, Abercrombie, Stern and Holdsworth led the jazz guitar into the 21st century, as I see it. Unfortunately, the 50s, 60s and 70s were the decades that the guitar as an instrument really thrived in musical forms from rock to folk to jazz to classical, and now the guitar is not as popular as it was even in rock.
-
Keep in mind that many of the old guys had similar sounds. If you've heard (and I'm sure you have) the records that Jim Hall and Jimmy Raney did with Bob Brookmeyer or Zoot Sims, if you don't know the styles, you would think it was the same guitarists playing both parts. This has to do as much with pickup and amp e[technology as anything else, perhaps a partial explanation why the young generation has taken advantage of advanced processing to make their live performances sound more like produced recordings. Metheny certainly did exactly that, and built a huge following. Originally Posted by kris
-
+1 Originally Posted by ronjazz
This is one on the best post.
Nobody is talking about recordings using, for example, a guitar synthesizer.
Metheny and Abercrombie made a lot of great recordings with g.synth.
-
Original and recognizable sound nowadays. Originally Posted by ronjazz
It was John Scofield and Pat Metheny who developed their original sounds and language over the years.
It consists of sound, phrasing, articulation etc.
Scofield feels great both in funk and straight ahead jazz.
Often young guitarist balance the sound between clean and distorted with rock influences.
Peter C likes it very much.
But is that a recognizable guitarist's sound?
-
I think guitarists now sound less alike, at least tonally.
-
This is something I have often read (including in the academic jazz education literature), repeated and rightly been challenged on. My thoughts on this are evolving… Originally Posted by L50EF15
My research such as it is suggests the picture is more complicated. Teachers at least in the UK are not driving technique; often they are they are emphasising the importance of real world musical skills. Most often they are highly experienced practitioners, often world class musicians who are keen to create a playing community as well as a classroom environment. It varies from school to school, but it sounds like they are aiming for what most professionals I know would think of as the right things.
Jazz education has been in constant evolution since it’s birth in the 1950s, and i would be surprised if jazz educators haven’t been at least a little responsive to criticism of their approaches; that criticism may come as much from within the faculty as from external sources, because they are employing real musicians.
The drive to technique seems to come from students. One notable thing is that all of the conservatoire guitar students I interviewed receive no guitar technique instruction whatsoever, instead having lessons with horn players etc. They are all technical monsters.
They are also in general pretty positive about their courses - much more so than the classical students I’ve had contact with (who often come across as a bit burnt out.) Again not necessarily very representative or scientific, but I get the feeling that jazz teaching is resisting that classicalisation impulse at least to some extent. I think this varies, but it’s pretty encouraging.
I wouldn’t claim that this is a finding that represents some general picture, not a big enough or varied enough sample size, but it is jolly interesting to me.
Caveat; These are small institutions taking at most one or two jazz guitar majors a year representing the top level of talent on the instrument in the country for that year. You would get a very different picture at less selective institutions such as universities, colleges specialising in rock/pop performance and big US schools with many more students with a wider range of abilities like Berklee where I think instrumental tuition would be more central, at least from what I’ve heard .
OTOH you have players like Tom Quayle who has literally never played a gig, and yet has a thriving career as a demonstrator, teacher and clinician. I doubt his career path has anything to do with advice from his teachers… the world is changing, and he found a career that suits him.Last edited by Christian Miller; 12-13-2021 at 04:44 AM.
-
Maybe it is so. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
I mean something else .
Let me give you an example.
After a few notes or phrases, I am able to say that the performer is e.g. Miles Davis.
If anyone's trying to imitate Davis, I know it's not him.
Perhaps this is because I have been listening to Miles Davis' music since I was a child.
-
Pat Metheny is a no-brainer in this discussion, of course.
So, we have keep our ears and mind open, n'est-ce pas? Nir Felder and Gilad Hekselman (for example) are miles apart tonally.
-
There are several reasons I think.
One is that the heyday of jazz is gone. Unless there is a revival it's niche music and will remain so. There is a tendency to talk about gold age artists more than current ones. That's not limited to guitarists: I haven't done word counts but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that more is written per year about Coltrane than Potter, Lovano, Redman, etc put together.
The genre is increasingly atomized. Everybody is working in their little corner and that means there isn't as much room for the artists that make an impression across jazz styles let alone in the mainstream culture.
How many great entertainers are there in the current crop? And I'm not talking about hamming it up, I'm talking about providing a show for the eyes as much as the ears. I'm not saying the older players were better players, but seeing the Blue Matter band or the Stern/Berg band was a show. And show = publicity = visibilty = discussion. Some of the younger guys are very introvert in their presentation.
[yelling at clouds] I do think there are similarities to some of the player's sounds. At least there are categories: There's the wet, even sound that I think of as Rosenwinkel derived, and you have the spacious twangers a la Frisell, Bro, etc. And especially the first sound in my mind wash out some of the player characteristics. I'm sure the old timers felt like that about chorus in the 80s. [/yelling at clouds]
I wonder whether the advanced nature of much modern jazz make it less talked about. Bebop, swing, most of the 80s cats, are fairly well understood and assimilated as influences by a broader range of players than some of the current crop. And we tend to talk about our influences
Anyway, the lockdown sessions of Mike Moreno made me a huge fan of his. And I think Nir Felder is one of the more intersting voices on the instrument to come out in a few years. Rosenwinkel may be too old to fit the title of the thread, but he's still out there playing wonderfully. And so on. There are plenty of new players out there that could warrant discussionLast edited by Average Joe; 12-13-2021 at 09:01 AM.
-
For all his imitators I can recognise Kurt after a couple of notes, no one really sounds like him. Or Metheny. Or Bill…. Or Pasquale, Lage Lund or Adam Rogers. I think I would struggle a bit with a 50s era player even one I am familiar with like Jimmy Raney. It would take longer …
But Wes I would hear right away, or Grant Green I think. But they had very unique tones. A lot of the 50s plectrum players sound quite similar tonally; similar note onset, guitars, pickups, amps, strings etc.
i think there’s a bit of backlash now against the wet thing btw
-
This is great, what is it? Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
The whole discussion is starting to make me laugh.
I feel like I'm in a record store.
I ask the seller - is there any news from jazz?
The seller - there is a new album of a jazz guitarist.
I ask-Is this album good?
The seller-I really don't know. The cover is nice.
-
Youtube says it's by Visen: Originally Posted by docsteve
About — Visen
-
Christian, Originally Posted by Christian Miller
You are young.
Therefore, you are more interested in young guitars players.
This is normal.You have a lot of knowledge about it.
I believe that there is so much knowledge in old recordings that I don't have to look for new inspirations by force.
Some people play Django style and aren't interested in anything other than playing the master's licks...
Reply With Quote
Moffa Mithra
Today, 08:31 AM in For Sale