Re: the "el lame'o" guitarists who ain't got no soul

[ModesSchmodes]

The "simply a word for music you don't like" thing doesn't fly: I love certain pieces of music, but only played by certain people. I've seen MANY youtubers with high technical skills play pieces of music I already love (and in all genres), and very few of them do it with any soul. Perfect execution of the notes on the page has nothing to do with the emotion a human being puts into those notes. I've seen people play a Mozart piece without emotion. It stinks. It's music alright: boring music.

But that's the world we live in: learn to play an instrument by going to YouTube and being shown how to play it, practice it until it's technically perfect, then put on your best cocktail dress and film it for the world. Nowhere in the formula is letting the piece of music affect your being so much that you pour your own emotion into it. You know when I want completely un-emotional work? When someone is designing a DSV I'm going to be riding in. But music? I'd rather hear a sloppy-but-emotional rendition of anything (let's say Mississippi John Hurt) than a technically-perfect-but-soulless something (many many youtubers)

No, it still applies. Your argument is only valid under the premise that the "original" piece of music is somehow more important than an interpretation of it. You don't like certain interpretations of pieces of music you like. You claim they are "soulless". But - and this is where this discussion finds its core - I believe there is almost nothing in the music itself that has an independent quality that we could call soul.

If you want to indulge me, give me two examples of the same piece of music - one you consider soulful and one you consider soulless - and pinpoint the objective quality that differences them, because this is what it boils down to. There needs to be something inside the music, inside the acoustic representation of the written piece, that we can point to and say "that's soulful". Otherwise it's all subjective and honestly not really a more useful descriptor than "I like it and I connect with it" or "I don't like it and I don't connect with it".

[ragman1]

I believe there is almost nothing in the music itself that has an independent quality that we could call soul.

Music is just sound vibration. It's only given life by the player and the player either mangles it or plays it beautifully.

[ModesSchmodes]

Music is just sound vibration. It's only given life by the player and the player either mangles it or plays it beautifully.

Yeah exactly. But the word "soulful" is most often just used as "music I like" or "music I emotionally connect to". I mean "mangles it or plays it beautifully" is already such a subjective statement in itself, yet with "soul" people more often than not use it as an intrinsic quality in the music, instead of accepting that it more often than not lies on their side of the equation.

[pamosmusic]

Just an aside.

It sounds a little ridiculous when everyone pulls out their “ain’t” and “nuthin” and “got no” when they’re talking about “blues” and “soul.”

There are corners of the world where that could be considered patronizing and obnoxious.

This is kind of a weird conversation, but the sort of performative, typed-out vernacular makes it weird for a whole host of other reasons. And it seems to be a regular thing with these topics; not just this thread.

[unknownguitarplayer]

Just an aside.

It sounds a little ridiculous when everyone pulls out their “ain’t” and “nuthin” and “got no” when they’re talking about “blues” and “soul.”

There are corners of the world where that could be considered patronizing and obnoxious.

(Being from the Appalachian south, I can confirm that as one of those corners.)

This is kind of a weird conversation, but the sort of performative, typed-out vernacular makes it weird for a whole host of other reasons. And it seems to be a regular thing with these topics; not just this thread.

Point taken. It also sounds a little ridiculous (and also "weird for a whole host other reasons") when players think that throwing in a few stolen blues licks makes them "soulful."

[AllanAllen]

OP, this is soul. That stuff you suggested is R&B which is soul influenced to a varying degree. But if you want to get to the heart of soul, you need Sam Cooke. Listen to a LOT of Sam Cooke, only Sam Cooke. If he's not your thing, you ain't got no soul either.

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

The point is, I think, is that you don't have to to define it - just express it... If you need a definition (and I hope you don't and are just trolling), then maybe you'll never get it... ?

I think the hesitancy to define it is to play it safe.

[dasein]

Just an aside.

It sounds a little ridiculous when everyone pulls out their “ain’t” and “nuthin” and “got no” when they’re talking about “blues” and “soul.”

There are corners of the world where that could be considered patronizing and obnoxious.

This is kind of a weird conversation, but the sort of performative, typed-out vernacular makes it weird for a whole host of other reasons. And it seems to be a regular thing with these topics; not just this thread.

You'll have to excuse them, the 60 year old retired hobbyists who mostly comprise this forum's userbase can't help but embarrass themselves at every opportunity.

As someone posted there, saying something lacks souls is most often just a meaningless descriptor people use for music (or art in general) they don't like (or sometimes get). Soul, as applied to art, is a social construct. It's what we come up with to explain something we have an emotional connection to, which in itself is extremely contingent on social factors. Something we describe as soulful would be considered the resepctive cultural equivalent of soulless in a completely different culture. The problem arises when people use it as a justification for the value of a piece of art, because it's most often (and by that I mean 99.9% of the times when it's used outside of analytical philosophy) ill-defined while carrying a lot of weight for the person using it and connotations.

This is entirely correct. Most of what people talk about when they typically talk about "soul" (at least in these contexts) can absolutely be categorized and talked about: phrasing, rhythmic nuances, dynamics, timbre, pitch, etc.

The problem arises when people are unable to talk about these things -- they either aren't aware of them or don't have the language for it. And so it's ascribed to a mystical quality, "in the notes but not of the notes." The assumption is that if they don't have the means to talk about it, that must be true for everyone else.

And surprise, surprise, the music that invariable gets labeled as "soulful" ends up being the same music that the listener uses as a kind of audio comfort food.

[mr. beaumont]

So there's 2 ways of looking at "soul" I guess. First there's the generic, ill informed, guitar player defiintion...a player bends a few notes or plays with some blues inflections, and the guitaridiot community swoons..."oh, he's got so much SOUL."

On a deeper level, when a player says another player has "soul," it usually means "I like their playing." It's usually only talked about with polarizing players. Nobody questions is Wes played with soul because who doesn't like Wes? So soul or the lack thereof becomes a way to defend/attack a player.

That sounds silly until you think about it...if I defend a player...let's pick a modern young player who plays a lot of notes-- Mancuso. Somebody rips on him and I say something like "yeah he plays a lot of notes, but he's got soul too"

I'm defending him, but why? I like his music...its made some kind of connection with me...and maybe that right there IS what soul really is.
The ability to connect with the listener.

Which means it's completely subjective.

[ruger9]

Or it's indeed only and exclusively the christian church that's responsible for the existence of afro-american music if they're the main institution responsible for the transplantation of unwilling Africans to the Americas.

Good thing they're not then. But, again, a subject for a forum other than a jazz guitar forum.

[ruger9]

No, it still applies. Your argument is only valid under the premise that the "original" piece of music is somehow more important than an interpretation of it. You don't like certain interpretations of pieces of music you like. You claim they are "soulless". But - and this is where this discussion finds its core - I believe there is almost nothing in the music itself that has an independent quality that we could call soul.

If you want to indulge me, give me two examples of the same piece of music - one you consider soulful and one you consider soulless - and pinpoint the objective quality that differences them, because this is what it boils down to. There needs to be something inside the music, inside the acoustic representation of the written piece, that we can point to and say "that's soulful". Otherwise it's all subjective and honestly not really a more useful descriptor than "I like it and I connect with it" or "I don't like it and I don't connect with it".

OK, so I can agree with that- meaning, for example, there is a person out there who no doubt has a very emotional reaction to much of Taylor Swift's music. Whereas I do not. I don't DISLIKE her music, it just doesn't touch me. But it does seem to touch others. I won't insult those others by implying their impression of the music is invalid. It's valid- to THEM- and that's what matters.

However, I still agree with the OP that soulless music does indeed exist, to the point where some humans sound like AI playing music. But then of course, AI music is next... isn't it?

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

You'll have to excuse them, the 60 year old retired hobbyists who mostly comprise this forum's userbase can't help but embarrass themselves at every opportunity.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Any true Scotsman has soul. If you don't have soul, you're not a true Scotsman.

[James Haze]

Any true Scotsman has soul. If you don't have soul, you're not a true Scotsman.

I completely agree with this.

[RJVB]

Good thing they're not then. But, again, a subject for a forum other than a jazz guitar forum.

I'm not so certain if not only because they could probably have prevented it, but you're right.

Any true Scotsman has soul. If you don't have soul, you're not a true Scotsman.

Is that the kind we call soûl here in France?

It just occurs to me that my favourite radio show during much of my highschool years was called the Soulshow (20-22h on "hilversum 3" on thursdays, IIRC). That show definitely had exclusively religious music, all in honour of cupid. Even a Divine performer, at some point

[James Haze]

Y'all tryna get all in my grill about defining what soul is in music. Hey, and by the way, I'm a black man, so if I want to say "y'all" or "ain't" once in a while I can do that, LOL. That's just the way some of us express ourselves sometimes. I know the proper way to say things, but sometimes I just don't feel like saying it that way. Esta claro?

Define it, whatever. ??? That's just the problem that keeps people from being able to grasp what it is. Looking for some mechanical definition of what soul is, so you can try and apply it to your playing in some mechanical fashion. Uhhhh no, that is not what it is. A big part of what soul is, is the absence of being mechanical with it. It's about being totally natural with it, flowing with it, enhancing it in a totally natural, flowing, artistic, emotive, beautiful way, with great phrasing that becomes part of the music; actually in it, not playing over the top of it in some mechanical fashion. So if you're thinking that you can put soul in your playing through some mechanical "quick fix" that you can apply to your playing, then good luck with that. You're thinking about it totally wrong.

The giant, Joe said repeatedly that being a good player is actually more about listening than playing. He is absolutely right about that. That's why, for the musician, the music of the giants whose shoulder's we are standing on is the best classroom a musician has. Sure, you should get a solid handle on the theory piece if you really want to be able to play well. That being said though, along with that the artistry of the giants whose shoulder's we are standing on is the best classroom a musician can have. That's why I say if you want to learn how, you need to listen to their recordings, and learn how to listen to your own playing analytically too.

Copying licks, copying licks, everyone wants to copy licks it seems. I never gravitated towards that way of thinking. I always seek to grasp the concepts behind what the guys are playing, and then come up with my own licks based loosely or strongly on those concepts, or even somewhere in between. Still, I think I sound pretty good, grooving, creative and original when I play. Apparently, as with most things, there is more than one way to do it.

[Bop Head]

[...] The giant, Joe [...]

Who is that?

[...] Copying licks, copying licks, everyone wants to copy licks it seems. I never gravitated towards that way of thinking. I always seek to grasp the concepts behind what the guys are playing, and then come up with my own licks based loosely or strongly on those concepts, or even somewhere in between. Still, I think I sound pretty good, grooving, creative and original when I play. Apparently, as with most things, there is more than one way to do it.

Not copying licks sounds like a good concept. While I am not sure if the following concept taught by Dizzy Gillespie to Mike Longo (his longtime musical director) leads directly to soulful playing, it is still worth posting that video here once more (I recommend muting the audio to avoid the awful sampled voice and simply read the text yourself. AFAIK this text was written by Longo for JazzInside mag).

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

Still tryna unnerstah what it is, lol.

So, did Roy Clark have soul? How about Pepe Romero?

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

You'll have to excuse them, the 60 year old retired hobbyists who mostly comprise this forum's userbase can't help but embarrass themselves at every opportunity.

But the older guys know more than the young whippersnappers. They can even spell "user base".

What they don't know as well are the latest and greatest lists of psychedelics and STDs.

[ThatRhythmMan]

Who says music with satanic themes can’t have soul????

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ragman1]

Y'all tryna get all in my grill about defining what soul is in music. Hey, and by the way, I'm a black man, so if I want to say "y'all" or "ain't" once in a while I can do that, LOL. That's just the way some of us express ourselves sometimes. I know the proper way to say things, but sometimes I just don't feel like saying it that way. Esta claro?

Define it, whatever. ??? That's just the problem that keeps people from being able to grasp what it is. Looking for some mechanical definition of what soul is, so you can try and apply it to your playing in some mechanical fashion. Uhhhh no, that is not what it is. A big part of what soul is, is the absence of being mechanical with it. It's about being totally natural with it, flowing with it, enhancing it in a totally natural, flowing, artistic, emotive, beautiful way, with great phrasing that becomes part of the music; actually in it, not playing over the top of it in some mechanical fashion. So if you're thinking that you can put soul in your playing through some mechanical "quick fix" that you can apply to your playing, then good luck with that. You're thinking about it totally wrong.

The giant, Joe said repeatedly that being a good player is actually more about listening than playing. He is absolutely right about that. That's why, for the musician, the music of the giants whose shoulder's we are standing on is the best classroom a musician has. Sure, you should get a solid handle on the theory piece if you really want to be able to play well. That being said though, along with that the artistry of the giants whose shoulder's we are standing on is the best classroom a musician can have. That's why I say if you want to learn how, you need to listen to their recordings, and learn how to listen to your own playing analytically too.

Copying licks, copying licks, everyone wants to copy licks it seems. I never gravitated towards that way of thinking. I always seek to grasp the concepts behind what the guys are playing, and then come up with my own licks based loosely or strongly on those concepts, or even somewhere in between. Still, I think I sound pretty good, grooving, creative and original when I play. Apparently, as with most things, there is more than one way to do it.

Excellent post. Black man? All the better. Sock it to 'em :-)

[Jimmy Smith]

All music doesn't have to have soul to be effective. It just has to communicate some feeling that the listener likes.

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

Is this another way of saying that white jazzers can’t or don’t swing, or at least not as well as African Americans? That has some truth to it of course, and maybe a lot.

My personal opinion is that it is mostly cultural, as opposed to racial. A person can’t help but relate to what they hear in their environment throughout their life. American Caucasians can play much like African Americans, but they likely have to work at it. So What? Or Big Whoop?

Now, if we’re talking about The Blues, Rhythm and Blues, Soul, Disco, Rap, Hip-Hop…. Why should we expect the situation to be any different? It doesn’t seem to be, not to my ears. Others may disagree.

The flip side is overdoing. It seems that every female singer, regardless of race or national origin, wants to sound like Beyoncé, et al. They’re not fooling anyone though, not when they lay it on too thick. Some of them should dial it back a little, and maybe a lot.

[Cunamara]

Wow. What an odd conversation. I think whether music has soul or not is completely dependent upon the listener, not upon the musician. It is a judgment applied to the music, not an inherent part of the music.

I think, at least I hope, that I am not arrogant enough to believe that I can judge somebody else’s soul. Whatever that is.

Wasn’t there is some thing in some book somewhere, saying “judge not, lest ye be judged“ or something like that?

[pauln]

When someone has soul...
it is described in various ways

the truth
testifying
giving witness
laying it down
preaching
speaking to you

You can recall others. The main idea is that they are described as having something to say, and they are communicating it, it's message is definitely getting out.