How many standards did the greats know?

[christianm77]

[QUOTE=Patlotch;1004252]

I also think that jazzmen (and women) who compose tend to favour their own compositions, and even more so if they have their own orchestra. When I played in a group, our repertoire was 75% my compositions, and a mix of standards, bossa-nova ... Personally, being an amateur, I had more than enough work with this list. Today, i am less and less interested in standards, or to divert them frankly

this is especially the case of the leaders of Big Bands (Basie, Duke, Gil Evans ...) but also whenever the repertoire has to be renewed (bebop, cool ... 1960s Bill Evans, Coltrane...), it's becoming new standards, to be constantly renewed

what you say about the need to focus on some standards that we want to play seems true to me

i think this is a false dichotomy. There’s a spectrum.

but all of the ‘greats’ that everyone seems to imagine existed on marble plinth playing a Love Supreme or whatever did functions gigs and dances.

Seriously. I know a guy whose wife was at a party in NYC in the 60s where the function band was the John Coltrane quartet. (And of course you can go and check then out backing Johnny Hartman etc.)

working musicians ....

[rpjazzguitar]

None of which address directly your question rpjazzguitar, so indulge me another, long, post. This is a subject that interests me.

The horse is long dead, but ....

I reacted to this from Galper:

"Learn the key. 2. Learn the meter. 4. Learn the length. 5. Learn the form. (AABA, ABA, etc.) 6. Learn the harmonic form. Where are the I chords, major and minor? Once you have the I chords you know that every I chord is preceded by it's appropriate II-V. 7. Learn the first chord of every section. (AABA) Is it a I, II, or V chord? 8. Since the melody fits the chords, at this point you should have enough info to begin learning the most difficult and complex part of a tune, the melody. It must be learned by rote. No short-cuts."

I don't think this is how the 1000-tunes guys do it. I think they memorize tunes the same way anybody who can sing a song does. You know what it sounds like and can reproduce it with no conscious thought. The 1000-tunes guys start there -- and to that, add the ability to automatically find the notes, chords and melody on the instrument.

I don't know exactly what Hal G meant by "where are the I chords", but I do know this. For the tunes I know backwards and forwards, I'd still have to think about how to answer that question. Unless he meant intuitively or unconsciously, in which case I couldn't answer it anyway.

So, it's by sound and you learn to connect those sounds to the notes on the instruments in exactly the way you said, Christian. You learn it from one, or more, tunes and hear it and apply in a new one. By sound.

[Patlotch]

i think this is a false dichotomy. There’s a spectrum. But all of the ‘greats’ that everyone seems to imagine existed on marble plinth playing a Love Supreme or whatever did functions gigs and dances. [...] Seriously. Working musicians ....

Yes, It's a dichotomy for professional musicians, and certainly this topic is about 'Greats', but you have to compare what is comparable, the situation and objectives of the musicians, as musicians and creators, are very diverse. I'm also talking about the situation of little-known groups, often amateurs, and who play their own repertoire, and this for fun and the creation of things New. They exist. Aren't they "Greats"? It doesn't matter: they're free!

Thus, today, nothing obliges me to learn standards, most of them American, become unknown to the French public (it is no longer 1960, the world has changed, it is not only the USA...). My pleasure is to play my music and this for free. I will never be a slave to any audience or a merchant, who will ask me for music from 50 years ago played like 50 years ago

When I played with my band in such situations, I was unhappy, and I did not adapt, I stopped doing what I did not like, a compromise unacceptable to me. I did painting, I wrote poetry. Would the notion of a "professional" painter mean that he is able to paint in the manner of Monet, Picasso, Chagall... according to the commercial demand? In this case, we are not talking about an artist-painter but a copyist, an imitator, or a forger. A poet, on the other hand, has no commercial demand, the market is zero, and if he responds to a request, he is no longer a poet. I was bored 42 hours a week in an office, but I practiced my art 60 hours a week. So I was still not a so called 'professional', but a free artist, not a proletarian of music or a merchant of myself

I know that you are not insensitive to it, because you gave up a professional life of researchers to do what you liked, without perhaps measuring the difficulties or the price to pay. I myself stopped my engineer's studies: I didn't want to serve a boss...

it seems to me that some people fantasize completely by referring to "the Greats" ones to know how to work, because the Greats ones had qualities that they will never have. It's also about being realistic. The point of having a good teacher face to face is to be able to optimize the talent of each student, according to his level and his goal, provided that the latter does not dream too much of becoming the future Guitar Hero. That he is a clear perception of what he is doing and what he is capable of doing. Some would play much better if they had more modest ambitions

for the rest, I've always found you to give good advice, which is far from the case other "teachers" here. I appreciate your ethics of jazz pedagogy, and I think you feel a duty to come here despite the desire you sometimes have to leave this forum. Personally, since I came, paradoxically, I'm much less focused on my music and my work as a guitarist

[christianm77]

The horse is long dead, but ....

I reacted to this from Galper:

"Learn the key. 2. Learn the meter. 4. Learn the length. 5. Learn the form. (AABA, ABA, etc.) 6. Learn the harmonic form. Where are the I chords, major and minor? Once you have the I chords you know that every I chord is preceded by it's appropriate II-V. 7. Learn the first chord of every section. (AABA) Is it a I, II, or V chord? 8. Since the melody fits the chords, at this point you should have enough info to begin learning the most difficult and complex part of a tune, the melody. It must be learned by rote. No short-cuts."

I don't think this is how the 1000-tunes guys do it. I think they memorize tunes the same way anybody who can sing a song does. You know what it sounds like and can reproduce it with no conscious thought. The 1000-tunes guys start there -- and to that, add the ability to automatically find the notes, chords and melody on the instrument.

I don't know exactly what Hal G meant by "where are the I chords", but I do know this. For the tunes I know backwards and forwards, I'd still have to think about how to answer that question. Unless he meant intuitively or unconsciously, in which case I couldn't answer it anyway.

So, it's by sound and you learn to connect those sounds to the notes on the instruments in exactly the way you said, Christian. You learn it from one, or more, tunes and hear it and apply in a new one. By sound.

thanks for the reply

you know the more I learn about teaching the more I realise that it’s about knowing when not to teach. I think Galper is giving too much information on how to do it.

after learning a few hundred my process is generally to listen to the song. First thing is form, then melody, trying to learn it intuitively by learning it as a song.

from there i practice being able to reliably play the melody. This can be quite a long process. In general the more melodies I learn the better I get, but it can’t really be busked. I do have to properly practice it. I think everyone does.

Once that’s done I sketch in a vanilla harmonisation, often working down from the melody. usually for GASB standards and similar this comes together very quickly. Like one pass, and very often I get this from listening to the song maybe just once, so I have to put that on hold while I take embarrassingly long to learn the melody.

Often it’s almost like a simple solo arrangement, but I make sure I can vary it.

then I check out the jazz discography of the tune. Sometimes I’ll take a deep dive into a Bill Evans harmonisation or something, but sometimes I’ll just be content to get it into playable condition and move on.

I also carefully listen to the bass on recordings, because you know sometimes you might not have much difference between say IIm7b5, IVm6 and bVII7 for instance. My ear says ‘b6 type chord.’ But usually I intuit the inner voices quickly. That’s my job as a guitar botherer right? So of course I here it easier.

Plus laptop speakers etc don’t give it to you strong so you have to check it out on headphones often...

That’s easier than the bass and melody which is not my job quite so much.

I might check out a few recordings. I’m not quite at the point of looking at the original sheet music, but I will listen to a legit version if available and

I think as guitarist I have a similar outlook to Galper in that melody takes time. A lot of melodies I have to drill. But I think you do get better at busking them.

melodies stick in the mind easier as aural memory. I’d rather rely on that then kinaesthetic or visual memory...

But my process has naturally shifted. It might change again. I wonder if it will change again. And I could imagine horn players for instance spending their time on different things.

And when you start out you are going to take much longer to learn the chords, and you’ll be necessarily much more bothered about the chord symbols etc because you haven’t developed that fluency in substitution: but stick with it and you will....

i think the main thing is that people have a go. By ear is tbh easier. Aural memory seems persistent.

[christianm77]

Ok on the subject of the I chords I think that’s an artefact of the specific way Galper views harmony. I’m more key centered. For instance I don’t think of the Eb in a Bb Cherokee as a separate key centre but within the key, and the Bb7 that goes into it as tonicisation of that diatonic chord. It sounds like Galper thinks of that Eb as a new key.

maybe I’m wrong about that, but I think there is some variation in how many modulations jazz players might think there is in any given tune. I encountered the more modulatory analysis in some jazz education contexts and for me it’s like converting centigrade into Fahrenheit.

[corpse]

Ok on the subject of the I chords I think that’s an artefact of the specific way Galper views harmony. I’m more key centered. For instance I don’t think of the Eb in a Bb Cherokee as a separate key centre but within the key, and the Bb7 that goes into it as tonicisation of that diatonic chord. It sounds like Galper thinks of that Eb as a new key.

maybe I’m wrong about that, but I think there is some variation in how many modulations jazz players might think there is in any given tune. I encountered the more modulatory analysis in some jazz education contexts and for me it’s like converting centigrade into Fahrenheit.

I am sort of in between. I see a lot more chords as belonging to a key, for example II7, iv minor, #iv half. I don't see that as borrowing or anything, it's just too common to consider it something special. For something like How high the moon I think "goes down in whole steps." For Body and soul I'll think "up a half step." So tunes modulate here and there to the IV, or V, or III, but the standards stay in a key more than people analyze.

[christianm77]

Yes, It's a dichotomy for professional musicians, and certainly this topic is about 'Greats', but you have to compare what is comparable, the situation and objectives of the musicians, as musicians and creators, are very diverse. I'm also talking about the situation of little-known groups, often amateurs, and who play their own repertoire, and this for fun and the creation of things New. They exist. Aren't they "Greats"? It doesn't matter: they're free!

Thus, today, nothing obliges me to learn standards, most of them American, become unknown to the French public (it is no longer 1960, the world has changed, it is not only the USA...). My pleasure is to play my music and this for free. I will never be a slave to any audience or a merchant, who will ask me for music from 50 years ago played like 50 years ago

When I played with my band in such situations, I was unhappy, and I did not adapt, I stopped doing what I did not like, a compromise unacceptable to me. I did painting, I wrote poetry. Would the notion of a "professional" painter mean that he is able to paint in the manner of Monet, Picasso, Chagall... according to the commercial demand? In this case, we are not talking about an artist-painter but a copyist, an imitator, or a forger. A poet, on the other hand, has no commercial demand, the market is zero, and if he responds to a request, he is no longer a poet. I was bored 42 hours a week in an office, but I practiced my art 60 hours a week. So I was still not a so called 'professional', but a free artist, not a proletarian of music or a merchant of myself

I know that you are not insensitive to it, because you gave up a professional life of researchers to do what you liked, without perhaps measuring the difficulties or the price to pay. I myself stopped my engineer's studies: I didn't want to serve a boss...

it seems to me that some people fantasize completely by referring to "the Greats" ones to know how to work, because the Greats ones had qualities that they will never have. It's also about being realistic. The point of having a good teacher face to face is to be able to optimize the talent of each student, according to his level and his goal, provided that the latter does not dream too much of becoming the future Guitar Hero. That he is a clear perception of what he is doing and what he is capable of doing. Some would play much better if they had more modest ambitions

for the rest, I've always found you to give good advice, which is far from the case other "teachers" here. I appreciate your ethics of jazz pedagogy, and I think you feel a duty to come here despite the desire you sometimes have to leave this forum. Personally, since I came, paradoxically, I'm much less focused on my music and my work as a guitarist

thanks for your thoughtful response.

i didn’t give up a life in research. I realised that a science career would require a phd which seemed like 4 years of swearing at a computer for no money. So I went and got a job where I could swear at a computer for money.

many have this realisation.... but in terms of becoming a pro musician it seemed daunting/laughable until someone who was professional said ‘you are good enough to teach’ which was what I needed to hear. Because without any musicians in my family I had basically no idea of the sorts of things musicians do for money, and what skill set is required for that.

Jazz still has something of a commercial existence as background music and this is really where the standards get used at least in my neck of the woods (that and jam sessions.)

I actually really like playing background gigs. Playing pretty songs with good musicians and making a great atmosphere for people, I don’t have a problem. It’s not the sum total of what I enjoy in music but I think I like it a lot more than many of my colleagues haha.

To me there’s something free about that. Sometimes when you do Jazz people expect something Clever and Intellectual. And in 13.

theres the swing dance scene as well, but that tends to be a bit older rep, 20s-early 40s stuff. Not to say that that stuff doesn’t get played ever, but a lot of self styled modern players don’t know that Donna Lee is based on Indiana, let me put it that way.

Beyond that I probably wouldn’t bother as there’s not much scope to play them really. There’s the tribute album scene in the UK but there’s not much in the way of players getting together and doing something of their own with a bunch of standards. Which is a shame, because for me that would be another kind of freedom.

as far as free jazz goes - plenty of that about. I’m just not really interested in noises and textures. I think I like linguistic things. And groove. There’s probably a way to do that in free jazz but I’m not good enough. I like free bop .... Some of those players swing harder than the straightahead players tbh.

anyway often when I do my own projects it’s like 2X45 minutes of my tunes. Which is cool.

[christianm77]

I am sort of in between. I see a lot more chords as belonging to a key, for example II7, iv minor, #iv half. I don't see that as borrowing or anything, it's just too common to consider it something special. For something like How high the moon I think "goes down in whole steps." For Body and soul I'll think "up a half step." So tunes modulate here and there to the IV, or V, or III, but the standards stay in a key more than people analyze.

I think we see it the same way. There used to be a guy here who studied with Bruce Arnold and everything was centric to one key. You’d audiate Giant Steps in B for instance.

[sully75]

Not informed enough to comment on this too much but the pro vs famous guy dichotomy reminds me of the Backup singer documentary ("20 feet from stardom" or something like that). Mainly that the musical skills of the backup singers were often superior to the stars they were backing up. They didn't need time to focus on making some piece of art, they could show up and make beautiful music without any hassle.

Same thing for the Motown guys. They were masterful at just coming up with something quick that was perfect and moving on. And for a long time, totally unrecognized.

Which is not to say that the superstar people don't bring their own special thing, personality and creativity or a different way of looking at things.

So the superstars who have a maybe smallish repetoire (Lee Konitz was mentioned recently as one of those) may not be able to do the same things the giggers who know 1000 tunes do. And definitely vice versa.

[christianm77]

Not informed enough to comment on this too much but the pro vs famous guy dichotomy reminds me of the Backup singer documentary ("20 feet from stardom" or something like that). Mainly that the musical skills of the backup singers were often superior to the stars they were backing up. They didn't need time to focus on making some piece of art, they could show up and make beautiful music without any hassle.

Same thing for the Motown guys. They were masterful at just coming up with something quick that was perfect and moving on. And for a long time, totally unrecognized.

Which is not to say that the superstar people don't bring their own special thing, personality and creativity or a different way of looking at things.

So the superstars who have a maybe smallish repetoire (Lee Konitz was mentioned recently as one of those) may not be able to do the same things the giggers who know 1000 tunes do. And definitely vice versa.

well I’m not sure. I only know one Tristano school guy who played with Konitz and Marsh back in the day and he knows as many tunes as anyone.

tbh Konitz as you say can get away with it haha. I do wonder how true this is though. You can have a small working repertoire and still be able to pick up tunes real quick. And in that case what’s the functional difference?

in practical terms Konitz can sell out playing Stella and ATTYA. They’d go to hear him play Twinkle Twinkle. Jobbing jazzers? Not so much. We have to have an angle.

[sully75]

well I’m not sure. I only know one Tristano school guy who played with Konitz and Marsh back in the day and he knows as many tunes as anyone.

tbh Konitz as you say can get away with it haha. I do wonder how true this is though. You can have a small working repertoire and still be able to pick up tunes real quick. And in that case what’s the functional difference?

I don't know I was just reading it somewhere the other day, maybe here. Something like Lee Konitz recorded 15 albums and 20 tunes. Said in jest but apparently his (recorded) repetoire was pretty small.

Ok why am I not practicing right now.

[sully75]

Ok just looking at a Lee Konitz greatest hits album with about 80 tunes so forget I said anything.

[christianm77]

I don't know I was just reading it somewhere the other day, maybe here. Something like Lee Konitz recorded 15 albums and 20 tunes. Said in jest but apparently his (recorded) repetoire was pretty small.

Ok why am I not practicing right now.

yeah I think it was Mark Rhodes who posted that. Have to ask him.

tbh the Tristano students had a reputation for cultivating a small repertoire that they played to a high level. Part of this was having a repertoire of contrafacts over the top like Lennie’s Pennies and so on that could be very knotty.

they still knew some tunes, which is more than can be said for a lot of students sadly.

[mr. beaumont]

It's not so much about Konitz "not knowing" a lot of tunes, dude has had a 70 year career! So of course he knows more than 20 tunes.

The concept here is that he revisits those tunes. The guy has been playing (and periodically recording) Body and Soul (just as an example) for 70 years. That's LIVING with a tune.

I think it's important to do both really. Keep learning tunes and take ones you really like and do EVERYTHING with them.

[lawson-stone]

thanks for your thoughtful response.

i didn’t give up a life in research. I realised that a science career would require a phd which seemed like 4 years of swearing at a computer for no money. So I went and got a job where I could swear at a computer for money.

many have this realisation.... but in terms of becoming a pro musician it seemed daunting/laughable until someone who was professional said ‘you are good enough to teach’ which was what I needed to hear. Because without any musicians in my family I had basically no idea of the sorts of things musicians do for money, and what skill set is required for that.

Jazz still has something of a commercial existence as background music and this is really where the standards get used at least in my neck of the woods (that and jam sessions.)

I actually really like playing background gigs. Playing pretty songs with good musicians and making a great atmosphere for people, I don’t have a problem. It’s not the sum total of what I enjoy in music but I think I like it a lot more than many of my colleagues haha.

To me there’s something free about that. Sometimes when you do Jazz people expect something Clever and Intellectual. And in 13.

theres the swing dance scene as well, but that tends to be a bit older rep, 20s-early 40s stuff. Not to say that that stuff doesn’t get played ever, but a lot of self styled modern players don’t know that Donna Lee is based on Indiana, let me put it that way.

Beyond that I probably wouldn’t bother as there’s not much scope to play them really. There’s the tribute album scene in the UK but there’s not much in the way of players getting together and doing something of their own with a bunch of standards. Which is a shame, because for me that would be another kind of freedom.

as far as free jazz goes - plenty of that about. I’m just not really interested in noises and textures. I think I like linguistic things. And groove. There’s probably a way to do that in free jazz but I’m not good enough. I like free bop .... Some of those players swing harder than the straightahead players tbh.

anyway often when I do my own projects it’s like 2X45 minutes of my tunes. Which is cool.

I'm so glad you're posting again. The thinking man's guitarist.

[44lombard]

yeah I think it was Mark Rhodes who posted that. Have to ask him.

The quote about Kontiz, said mostly in jest, was from Mark Stryker, author of 'Jazz from Detroit' (and a former sax player who seems to know every record by every post-war sax player ever). I posted it just by way of saying that once you become a bandleader of the 'Jazz Greats' caliber, you have the luxury of focusing on a smaller repertoire of your choosing. Didn't mean to imply that Konitz didn't know tunes beyond his core favorites.

I actually really like playing background gigs. Playing pretty songs with good musicians and making a great atmosphere for people, I don’t have a problem. It’s not the sum total of what I enjoy in music but I think I like it a lot more than many of my colleagues haha.

We've all noticed how many audience members can be heard chatting away behind the Bill Evans trio on 'Sunday at the Village Vanguard' and the Jim Hall trio on 'Live!'. One person's background music can be another's transcendent art!

[Patlotch]

LEE KONITZ with Richie Kamuca

with Marshall Brown

with Joe Henderson You Don't Know What Love Is

[rpjazzguitar]

Ok on the subject of the I chords I think that’s an artefact of the specific way Galper views harmony. I’m more key centered. For instance I don’t think of the Eb in a Bb Cherokee as a separate key centre but within the key, and the Bb7 that goes into it as tonicisation of that diatonic chord. It sounds like Galper thinks of that Eb as a new key.

maybe I’m wrong about that, but I think there is some variation in how many modulations jazz players might think there is in any given tune. I encountered the more modulatory analysis in some jazz education contexts and for me it’s like converting centigrade into Fahrenheit.

My typical process, fwiw, is this. The bands I play in mostly read arrangements. So, often it starts with a chart in a session. When I get home, if I want to learn the tune, I'll check out some recordings and pick one that strikes me somehow as definitive -- meaning, it's the one I have the chart for. I then listen to it a few times to the point where I start to internalize the melody. I then try to grasp the sound of the chords. How easy that is depends on the tune. At this point, it's hard for me to put the process into language. I start to hear something that tells me what chord is coming next. Maybe I could call it a guide tone line, but it's more idiosyncratic than that. For example, if there's a m7b5 chord with the melody note as the b3, I hear it instantly. Other devices, not so much. Some are obvious to me, some not and I still work on the ear training component. I think the suggestions to do it one tune at a time, starting, for example, with Bruce Forman's list (which covers a lot of harmonic devices) is a good idea.

Cherokee is a good example. The melody makes the chord progression completely obvious to my ear. The only place I might have to think would be the first chord of the bridge. Since I can hear that melody in my mind, I can find a note or two from that and fill in the rest of the chord quickly enough to play the tune.

Dolphin Dance, for example, is at the other extreme. I'm just not familiar enough with the sound of the transition from a chord to the next, in some cases. I could learn it by rote, but trying to do it by sound, so that next year I could play it instantly in a different key, well, that would be outside of my current skillset.

[christianm77]

The quote about Kontiz, said mostly in jest, was from Mark Stryker, author of 'Jazz from Detroit' (and a former sax player who seems to know every record by every post-war sax player ever). I posted it just by way of saying that once you become a bandleader of the 'Jazz Greats' caliber, you have the luxury of focusing on a smaller repertoire of your choosing. Didn't mean to imply that Konitz didn't know tunes beyond his core favorites.



We've all noticed how many audience members can be heard chatting away behind the Bill Evans trio on 'Sunday at the Village Vanguard' and the Jim Hall trio on 'Live!'. One person's background music can be another's transcendent art!

Paul Desmond with Ed Bickert on a live record I have. I’m really impressed with how they’ve captured the clink of the crockery on that one. Good engineer.

Or the Minton’s tapes when people are just having conversations through the music next to the recorder. I actually kind of love it.

[christianm77]

My typical process, fwiw, is this. The bands I play in mostly read arrangements. So, often it starts with a chart in a session. When I get home, if I want to learn the tune, I'll check out some recordings and pick one that strikes me somehow as definitive -- meaning, it's the one I have the chart for. I then listen to it a few times to the point where I start to internalize the melody. I then try to grasp the sound of the chords. How easy that is depends on the tune. At this point, it's hard for me to put the process into language. I start to hear something that tells me what chord is coming next. Maybe I could call it a guide tone line, but it's more idiosyncratic than that. For example, if there's a m7b5 chord with the melody note as the b3, I hear it instantly. Other devices, not so much. Some are obvious to me, some not and I still work on the ear training component. I think the suggestions to do it one tune at a time, starting, for example, with Bruce Forman's list (which covers a lot of harmonic devices) is a good idea.

Cherokee is a good example. The melody makes the chord progression completely obvious to my ear. The only place I might have to thing would be the first chord of the bridge. Since I can hear that melody in my mind, I can find a note or two from that and fill in the rest of the chord quickly enough to play the tune.

Dolphin Dance, for example, is at the other extreme. I'm just not familiar enough with the sound of the transition from a chord to the next, in some cases. I could learn it by rote, but trying to do it by sound, so that next year I could play it instantly in a different key, well, that would be outside of my current skillset.

yeah so this is where we hit the snag no? and that’s where that depth of knowledge becomes important. Because at 1K tunes you don’t just know two or three of a certain composers tunes, you know albums of them..

DD is obviously not entirely functional standards type harmony. Themore modern tunes have more diversity and are more composer specific. sure Cole Porter and Gershwin have stylistic ticks, but it’s more pronounced. Musical language becomes more personal as jazz musicians start to become more central to the repertoire. (I mean it’s not necessarily modern... Django had a pretty personal musical language, and Ellington obviously)

So maybe if you sit down and learn 30 Herbie tunes + as part of your 1K you see/hear the patterns? Or maybe not. But you might not see it in Wayne or another composer of the same era.

so..... I’m working through Wayne ATM there’s definitely things he likes to do.

You can’t do it all, so your passions have to guide you.

[christianm77]

LEE KONITZ with Richie Kamuca

with Marshall Brown

with Joe Henderson You Don't Know What Love Is

nice I’ll listen to this later...

[christianm77]

Struttin with Some Barbeque is proper trad rep lol. Tickle toe is early Basie. I know both because of dance gigs.

Just goes to show the modern guys liked old tunes... Pepper on Jazz Me Blues (Bix) is a classic:

[christianm77]

Raney killing it on Dinah.

Trane and Adderly on Limehouse Blues... anyway you get the picture. Makes sense - those were the tunes they heard as kids...

the straightahead guys I know wouldn’t know these tunes but would cock a snoot at you for not knowing Dolphin Dance.... there’s never a need to be a dick about rep, so long as we have something in common to play...

[Patlotch]

he great originality of a jazz forum or jazz guitar forum, is to ask questions like I have never read in the jazz magazines I have read for 50 years. One can wonder without complex about The Ultimate Jazz Instrument or the number of standards to know (as the Greats) ... What for? Learn to play or play them in a gig?

as in many areas, the problem is often in the question. Charles Kettering said "A Problem well stated is a Problem half-solved", and to paraphrase Karl Marx (about Humanity): Jazz never only poses problems it is able to solve

unless the real function of the forum is to talk talking talk... to feel good in the so called community? It's better than in the Minton's Playhouse, the public doesn't make any noise

[christianm77]

he great originality of a jazz forum or jazz guitar forum, is to ask questions like I have never read in the jazz magazines I have read for 50 years. One can wonder without complex about The Ultimate Jazz Instrument or the number of standards to know (as the Greats) ... What for? Learn to play or play them in a gig?

as in many areas, the problem is often in the question. Charles Kettering said "A Problem well stated is a Problem half-solved", and to paraphrase Karl Marx (about Humanity): Jazz never only poses problems it is able to solve

unless the real function of the forum is to talk talking talk... to feel good in the so called community? It's better than in the Minton's Playhouse, the public doesn't make any noise

For me it’s a topic of conversation. What shall we talk about? There is No Greater Love.

There’s many other reasons. But the main one is that jazz for me is that art of musical conversation. It’s not how everyone views it, it’s not even perhaps a good description historically always, but it’s where it lives for me.