-
Thanks for mentioning it!I think the biggest change lies with repertoire. That is, for many fields (-bluegrass and Gypsy jazz make great examples, but blues, folk, and swing do too) the way one displayed one's talent was through performing well a piece the audience knew. (This is how they could know you were doing it well, if you were doing a fairly straightforward version, or taking it somewhere new, as Miles did with many of the standards he recorded.) We see this with singers today on the televised talent shows.)
That is very important because to me it shows an essential feature of jazz performance - competition. Competition has alway been a part of jamming, battles were regular from the earliest days of jazz, and there were rules that those who were involved in it understood... In classical music there were also battles but it was not so crucial part of composition... and in jazzz we can feel this spriti even in records.
the other point is more lyrical, that partly was mentioned by matt above, I think standards are often used also as reference - they took standard and when they play over it they refer to some other well-know performance, or to the lyrics of the original song, I mean that reference is involved in the aesthetics... n the maning... a kind of post-modernistic art). I
Byt the way Woody (and sometimes other Holliwood film-makers) mentioned in the other thread often uses songs without lyrics but meaning that audience should know the lyrics that fits the moment... this is how Great American Songbook works too... not only jazz standards.
n the nearby thread I mentioned 'Where can I go without you' and its reference to 'Foggy Day' and how Charlie and Keith take out a bluesy/soul spirit hidden in this song... so many differetn refferences actually: lyrics, original harmonic chages, genre sources of jazz... this is real tradition, memory
-
12-01-2014 12:05 AM
-
Whichever way you say it, it comes to, in order to become standard, a tune has to be:
- played a lot
- by the majority of the top level musicians and leading stars of the genre
- to lots of accepting people
- who, both the players and listeners, know/ like the tune already, from the past,
- that's before they played it/ listened to it in it's current form
I see it as a paradox nobody can resolve.
It was possible once in a time, back then when the genre was relativly new and fresh, novelty, was the main body of popular music and was not watered down by enormously inflated number of "genious, superb and excellent" players, as it is today, and never again.
Unless some mirracle happens.
-
Vladan,
And i think for jazz it is essentially crucial ... just because jazz has no conservation idea as it is.. its general concept is in being 'here and now'.
-
I understand that, but don't think it's of importance to weather some tune will become standard, IMO.
EDIT: Maybe I did not understand this last post, maybe we're in agreement?Last edited by Vladan; 12-01-2014 at 04:35 AM.
-
I just meant that that momentary nature of jazz makes this idea
even more true.It was possible once in a time, back then when the genre was relativly new and fresh, novelty, was the main body of popular music and was not watered down by enormously inflated number of "genious, superb and excellent" players, as it is today, and never again.
-
Jazz musician ask, what songs can I jazzify? You might try starting with some songs you like.
-
Yes, eventually I figured that could be it, only I was too slow thinker and too fast typist.
Originally Posted by Jonah
Sorry for ...
-
Ah, memory. That is crucial (and not just for music.) I think it's why many great improvisers put "quotes" in their solos. It consciously connects what is happening now (-a particular performance) with a storied performance from the past. Originally Posted by Jonah
-
What a beauty Gail Russell was. And such a tragic life. Originally Posted by jakeyboy1216
Hollywood....
Gail Russell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-
You would need to be an amazing composer today to write a song that is:
1)widely known
2)Is a great improvisation vehicle
3)is not "almost" an existing standard
I see "Cinema Paradiso" by Morricone being a good example of a tune that will be called a standard pretty soon. Its from a 1988 movie so not quite recent.
-
As several posters have observed, the conditions that led to development of the current "jazz standards" don't really exist today. Back then, there were many tunes with sophisticated and interesting melodies that were also hugely popular. Jazz musicians could reinterpret them and most audiences would recognize the tune and find the reinterpretation refreshing.
I think great pop-style melodies are still being composed (much of Sting's work, for instance). But most tunes that actually become popular these days tend to be melodically pretty banal to my ears.
BTW, I focus first on melody, not harmony when judging the musical merit of tunes.
-
I agree that's a great melody to reinterpret in jazz form. But I wouldn't call it a jazz standard unless it either gets a lot of requests on the bandstand or is often called in jams. Then serious jazz musicians will need to either learn it or at least keep a chart handy. I doubt that will ever happen with this tune. I wish it would though! Originally Posted by Takemitsu
-
I really hate Tornatorre))) fake Fellinni.. and this song sounds too 'pop - corny' for me...I see "Cinema Paradiso" by Morricone being a good example of a tune that will be called a standard pretty soon. Its from a 1988 movie so not quite recent.
Old songs also were sentimental but that was the whole style - it was kitchy... so it was all right. Nowdays it is not a style any more and sounds just corny...
Though Morricone had another good jazzy piece of music - in 'Once upon a time in America' .... though it sounds to me like 'spaghetti jazz' - I mean like modern Italian pop stylized to be swing jazz.
-
Does it matter at all that jazzers are still doing covers of top 40 tunes, or new movie and show tunes all the time? Jazz is so irrelevant to mainstream culture that it is almost invisible. Every year a few popular tunes become vocal standards that stand the test of time, but jazz really has no way to add to it's canon in it's current situation.
-
If you're interested in the Great American Songbook, you should check Alec Wilder's book 'American Popular Song: The Great Innovators, 1900-1950.' An awesome read, by an opinionated but also very capable songwriter himself.
It seems to me that the TYPICAL standard is a song (so has vocals) that was written by a composer (who is not the main performer) and was intended for a musical or film, or was intended as a popular song. People ('non-musicians') would buy the sheet music upon hearing such songs, or upon seeing the musical or film, and try to play it at home.
People like Kern and Rodgers wrote for the theater, which had a more sophisticated audience. Their songs tend to more complicated than the songs by, for instance, a Walter Donaldson or a Lou Handman.
But in general the songs were popular entertainment that were meant to appeal to the wider public. Composers took care not to push the envelop too much, and not to write songs that were too demanding for the average joe. (In contrast, compare this with late John Coltrane. Basically 100% the opposite.)
In his book, Wilder discusses the big ones: Berlin, Rodgers, Kern, Arlen and Porter. He also covers lesser-known-but-still-pretty-good composers, and he also has a chapter on one-hit-wonders.
But in any case, this era ended more of less by the late 40s. The output of musicians such as Charlie Parker cannot be considered 'standards'--because jazz became specialized in various ways, and the compositions by jazz musicians no longer had the same goals as the songs by, say, Irving Berlin or Richard Rodgers.
Of course, one could argue that plenty of jazz compositions from later than 1950 have entered the realm of 'standards' (by which is meant that certain compositions are covered by plenty of other jazz musicians). Now, sure that is true, but I'd argue that these compositions, while popular, are of a different nature than the typical standard that is associated with the Great American Songbook.Last edited by dizzy101; 01-02-2015 at 11:33 AM.
-
Last edited by Jabberwocky; 01-02-2015 at 02:01 PM.
-
That might be a question.But in any case, this era ended more of less by the late 40s. The output of musicians such as Charlie Parker cannot be considered 'standards'--because jazz became specialized in various ways, and the compositions by jazz musicians no longer had the same goals as the songs by, say, Irving Berlin or Richard Rodgers.
How are the goals they realted with the fact they become 'standard'?
-
I agree that that is a good book. I might should take another run at it, as it's been a long time now... Originally Posted by dizzy101
-
to me "standards" have a "feel" all their own..and today there are standards being written that convey that feel..works of billy joel.."New York state of mind" and some of his other tunes..Paul Simon has an extensive songbook that is influenced by the music of the past..George Harrisons' "Something" .. and many lessor known groups have songs that meet that criteria..yes the works of Gershwin..Porter and all the rest were the gold standard of the day..but then it was a much different world with very little technology and most if not all the writers were American..today songwriters can be from any country and their work can be a backdrop for any and all forms of media and art..movie/TV-shows/commercials/theatre/soundtracks..so to many a song that is 20 years old can be new to million of new listeners..
A "Real Book" in the future may be in the thousands of pages containing songs many have never heard..yet were top hits in some genre ... and many may be surprised they have heard a song many times and not know the artist or the writer..nor care too..
I was surprised at a Miles Davis concert in Los Angeles..years ago..and Miles began playing a melody that I recognized by sound but could not place the artist who sang/wrote it..then it hit me when he played the "hook" of the song..Time After Time by Cindi Lauper..I bet she was surprised also..
-
I think that this is really the truth.When a song stars getting played by top people again and again it becomes a standard by default. One of the biggest examples of this is Metheny's "Bright Size Life". It finds its way onto a lot of setlists and a lot of recordings. Chick Corea's "Spain" is another one. Everybody plays Watermelon Man and Canteloupe Island. Many people are playing Metheny's Question and Answer. Originally Posted by Vladan
The Beatles' "Yesterday" and previously mentioned "Something" are pop songs that have been given jazz treatments many many times.
-
And anyway i would not say that Yesterday or Something became jazz standards
-
......................yet Originally Posted by Jonah
-
It depends... there are no definitions.......................yet
Standard in 20s-40s was something very very special - it was not just a song often played and recignized in jazz world...
I cannot find any equivalent in any musical tradiction that I know...
It was already mentioned in the thread, the fact that people make lots of jazz covers of some song does not make that song a standard in a sense it had in 20s-40s..
I think jazz is strongly rooted in time and place , very strong social background... it is really exceptional that music that was partly entertainment and partly rebellion managed to devolpe a language to a level of real art..
There was some chemestry that made it happen... and standards were just a part of it..
It isi like when you were kid you played with your friends in the backyard - and there were maples... and there were also the part of all that... but now years passed and there are palm-trees in this backyard, but you cannot put these, they are nice but they are not the part of it...
Some books are just to read over and over again. I does not mean they are dead, evr new reader brings it back to life.
Reply With Quote
Dell Arte/Stringphonic Basic 503 Gypsy Jazz Guitar
Today, 01:45 PM in For Sale