The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Posts 1 to 25 of 45
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    I came across Wikipedia lists of standards.

    The 40's was a great decade but the 30's was spectacular. Almost a century later and most of these songs are still worth hearing and studying.

    List of 1930s jazz standards - Wikipedia

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    There are some pretty special songs on that list. Its hard to believe they go back that far. They have just become woven into the fabric of music history.

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

    The 30s were spectacular for yielding great songs that would become jazz standards.

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    O, yeah, lots of great songs from that era still sound good. '20s too, for that matter. (Honeysuckle Rose, Sweet Georgia Brown, Avalon, Bye, Bye Blackbird, Sweet Lorraine...)

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    They will begin to go in the public domain in three years, will be interesting when all the original sheets are on IMSLP.org

  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    Thanks, what an eye opener!

    A while back I was at a guitar workshop in Japan led by an American guitarist. He started by asking, "What is jazz?" Most answered, "Improvisation." I held my tongue, knowing full well having studied Indian, Arabic and Iranian music, that could't be the answer." Turned out to be, "History." Yes, and then I got it, adding without missing a beat, "And repertoire."

    This list points to many of my most loved and oft-played tunes.

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JazzPadd
    Thanks, what an eye opener!

    A while back I was at a guitar workshop in Japan led by an American guitarist. He started by asking, "What is jazz?" Most answered, "Improvisation." I held my tongue, knowing full well having studied Indian, Arabic and Iranian music, that could't be the answer." Turned out to be, "History." Yes, and then I got it, adding without missing a beat, "And repertoire."

    This list points to many of my most loved and oft-played tunes.
    This.

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BWV
    They will begin to go in the public domain in three years, will be interesting when all the original sheets are on IMSLP.org
    Some great tunes just went into the public domain this year, including "Someone to Watch Over Me", "Blue Skies", and "Bye Bye Blackbird". The 1930s are probably the single greatest decade, but the ramp-up to that level of writing was well underway by the mid-1920s. Gershwin and Rodgers kicked into high gear around 1926, giving Kern and Berlin a little competition, and Cole Porter really started finding his groove about two years later. I assume they were all listening closely to each other and trying to one-up the latest thing. I was just reading Alec Wilder's chapter on Richard Rodgers, and his productivity in the 1930s was unreal. Just knocking them out of the park, one right after another for the whole decade. It's almost a shame that "Oklahoma" came along and changed the game, slowing the pace at which he was producing new musicals a bit. The less timeless musicals (and movies) of the 1930s that hung around only a few months created that huge demand for material. Once the blockbuster musical came along in the 1940s, the whole paradigm shifted.

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JazzPadd
    Thanks, what an eye opener!

    A while back I was at a guitar workshop in Japan led by an American guitarist. He started by asking, "What is jazz?" Most answered, "Improvisation." I held my tongue, knowing full well having studied Indian, Arabic and Iranian music, that could't be the answer." Turned out to be, "History." Yes, and then I got it, adding without missing a beat, "And repertoire."

    This list points to many of my most loved and oft-played tunes.
    History and repertoire. And there you have it.

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

    I worked once with Cy Coleman, and even before that had a long conversation with him about a show of his of which I was a particular fan. The show was Wildcat starring Lucille Ball. I asked him why it didn't run longer; he told me the show wore her out, and she left the show after 171 performances. Wikipedia says the show closed due to musicians' union demands, but Cy told me it closed because there was no way to get a replacement: "Who could replace Lucille Ball?" He loved the show, too.

    I think Cy Coleman is one of the under-appreciated composers in the American Musical tradition. People know the songs, but not the composer. This song, from Wildcat, has wonderful changes, and is a wishlist of things Lucille Ball's character (Wildcat) wants for her crippled sister. Lyrics by the incomparable Carolyn Leigh.


  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JazzPadd
    Thanks, what an eye opener!

    A while back I was at a guitar workshop in Japan led by an American guitarist. He started by asking, "What is jazz?" Most answered, "Improvisation." I held my tongue, knowing full well having studied Indian, Arabic and Iranian music, that could't be the answer." Turned out to be, "History." Yes, and then I got it, adding without missing a beat, "And repertoire."

    This list points to many of my most loved and oft-played tunes.
    Not following the logic here. (?)

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    I think it means you are not allowed to do anything new, because that would not be jazz. You have to play the standards, just like they did back in the day.

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    "History and repertoire". Yes, I like this definition.

    I don't think it's possible "to do anything new" without connection to the past. You could try, but it won't be Jazz. The "Jazz is dead"-philosophy helps us understand why it's pointless to try to re-invent the past, but fortunately we can learn things from the past and revive good old days.

  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Litterick
    I think it means you are not allowed to do anything new, because that would not be jazz. You have to play the standards, just like they did back in the day.
    Yeah, like these mouldy figs.


    Seriously, one thing I love about New York jazz is the way they can continue to play standards and find new things in them. Which to me is playing them way they were played back in the day - before everyone decided to copy the Miles Davis version.

    It's also a sign of the strength of these tunes, which is often lacking in newer material.

    Why do I think this is? Well, I think it's in the melodies.

    Modern compositions often require you to play the exact written chords, and are often hard to rearrange or reinterpret because of it. So new band = new tunes. Copyright law and royalties encourage this. But versions of contemporary compositions by other bands often resemble cover versions in the rock/pop sense than unique interpretations for this reason - a most of tune's identity is in the harmony and arrangement (this can also be found in straightahead jazz when people play the exact arrangement from this or that album, quite a popular type of gig in my city.) This isn't true of all modern composers of course.

    Standards in contrast, have clear tunes. Much like plainchant and chorales got used as raw materials for composers for centuries after their composition, standards melodies allow reharmonisation and reinterpretation in many different styles and facilitate harmonic and rhythmic creativity. That's harder - although not impossible - to find in todays popular music; it's also hard to find in modern original jazz compositions.

    Anyway creativity crops up in all sorts of ways, and this type of dichotomy is a bit limiting. There's a fine tradition of jazz musicians not playing standards and playing highly arranged original material right from day one (in fact predating the use of popular song as a vehicle for improvisation). I'm not dissing that. But a good song is a good song, and we need good songs to play.

    The other side of that quote - the history - is INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. That's not just musical history. Jazz must not be separated from its social context. One can furthermore learn history without being imprisoned by it; learning history gives you a solid foundation on which to find your own voice.

    I've actually got to the point where I find the conflation of jazz with improvisation as quite offensive. Jazz is a musical tradition, one of many worldwide and throughout history that include improvisation as a core process, but sometimes involves very carefully composed music. If one doesn't like that, there's non-idiomatic improvisation. That's not to say jazz isn't a broad church and endlessly reinventing itself at the very same time.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 03-01-2022 at 09:59 AM.

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Litterick
    I think it means you are not allowed to do anything new, because that would not be jazz. You have to play the standards, just like they did back in the day.
    One can do anything one likes. As Flannery O'Connor put it, "You can can do anything you can get away with, but nobody has ever gotten away with much." But if you're doing Something Else, why would you want to call it jazz? (It's not as if jazz sells.)

  17. #16

    User Info Menu

    Answering the question "What is jazz?" with "history and repertoire" does not necessarily suggest an advocacy of stodgy conservatism. While history can certainly be seen as something fixed and immovable, history is also a journey along a timeline from the past to the present, and beyond. In that sense we're all part of the history of this which we know as jazz. Reworking the old repertoire, deconstructing and rediscovering the traditional tunes such as those on the list that sparked this conversation, is part of that journey. But along they way new tunes are also written that refer to or consciously depart from the well-worn repository. And, in turn, all this can be embraced by those who follow. I prefer to think of jazz this way, as a living history with its vibrantly evolving repertoire.
    Last edited by JazzPadd; 03-04-2022 at 10:34 PM.

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
    One can do anything one likes. As Flannery O'Connor put it, "You can can do anything you can get away with, but nobody has ever gotten away with much." But if you're doing Something Else, why would you want to call it jazz? (It's not as if jazz sells.)
    Jazz was once modern, and musicians constantly would be doing something else, finding new ways to do jazz. That was in the nature of jazz. Even today, in our conservative and regressive times, some jazz musicians do something else. Traditionalists will say it is not jazz, but who are they to set boundaries? Why call it anything else but jazz?

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Litterick
    Jazz was once modern, and musicians constantly would be doing something else, finding new ways to do jazz. That was in the nature of jazz. Even today, in our conservative and regressive times, some jazz musicians do something else. Traditionalists will say it is not jazz, but who are they to set boundaries? Why call it anything else but jazz?
    How about we call it ‘music’?

    What’s much more interesting than trying to define jazz (which btw is equally difficult for any art form, jazz isn’t unique) is the social aspect of this which I find baffling.

    The jazz label is something people have a lot of emotional investment in.

    This is a historical oversimplification probably, but to echo Nicholas Payton, it seems there was a time when ‘jazz musicians’ - Miles, Bird etc etc - would do anything to not be associated with the term. Bird did not think of his music as jazz - ‘jazz’ had connotations of lightweight entertainment, old style New Orleans music etc. The music of Monk etc is serious African American music, and so on.

    Now everyone wants to hang on to the term, and claim that their electronic music project or groove jam band or whatever it is is ‘jazz.’

    And they quite offended if you say otherwise, as if one is making some sort of value judgment on whether the music is good or bad.

    I’m not sure why this is. In a way I think the jazz label is a bit unhelpful to would be listeners if it’s so broad it encompasses Jelly Roll Morton and Knower.

    Needless to say many ‘jazz festivals’ book increasingly less and less jazz anyway.

    Why label anything you do anyway?

    for instance, the only reason I think many Ben Monder albums are considered jazz are because he’s known as an NYC jazz guitarist; but his music - which I love - I think would appeal to a lot of eclectic rock/experimental listeners who would never go near a Dexter Gordon album.

    (this seems to different to when Chris Thile plays Bach - is he still playing bluegrass?)

    I wonder why this is? Maybe it’s down to the fact that instrumental music has disappeared from mainstream pop. Not to mention live performance increasingly replaced by DAW production. Jazz becomes a shorthand for live, somewhat spontaneous music performed by humans.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 03-06-2022 at 04:41 AM.

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    I am not going to waste any time responding to that stream of irrelevance.

  21. #20

    User Info Menu

    Great tunes...

    Someone (may have been Branford Marsalis) said Jazz has only two elements that distinguish it from all other forms of music,

    The use of the flat 3rd & 7th in the melody (his emphasis)

    and

    'swing' time feel AKA N.O. 2nd line & it's derivations.

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    We're about 100 years past the birth of 'mainstream' jazz. I view Duke Ellington as the first blueprint for most jazz, before that was antiquated stuff imo (which I do like).


  23. #22

    User Info Menu

    Are modern show tunes really that much worse/less catchy/less suited for appropriation by jazz players? I'm including movies here too. Or is it that the expectations of jazz musicians and audiences changed? Would modern audiences accept a gig made up mainly of tunes from Hamilton, Frozen, The Lion King, etc as the common repertoire of our times, or do we expect something else from artists? I'm talking about as a common practice, not single bands here and there picking up a tune or two.

    There are some great songs on that list. I think the music is in a different place now and it doesn't allow for the same approach to choosing repertoire.

  24. #23

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Litterick
    I am not going to waste any time responding to that stream of irrelevance.
    A shame. I think it's a more interesting area to explore than the usual cliched discussions we have here.

  25. #24

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Average Joe
    Would modern audiences accept a gig made up mainly of tunes from Hamilton, Frozen, The Lion King, etc as the common repertoire of our times
    Good question!

    We used to play 'Prince Ali' from Aladdin. That one works well.

    I'm struggling to imagine 'Let it Go' as a jazz tune, but this may have more to do with the limits of my imagination than anything else haha. Jake Reichbart has probably done it lol.

    It's interesting that I can imagine this more with that sort of show rep than I can with a lot of contemporary pop - the melodies are strong and the songs have quite traditional functional changes in many cases and so on.

    Not sure about Hamilton, but I could imagine playing some of the stuff from Encanto on a gig.

    Perhaps fundamentally the limit is lack of imagination for me - it's easy to imagine how a tune can be played in a modern jazz style once you've heard Miles do it, and that's where most people's conceptions of standards playing, including the changes and keys, comes from; those '50s records are the basis of so many repertoire lists and Real Book charts etc.

    But a good song is a good song, and it used to be part of the art form to reimagine what was then very mainstream material in a rich and complex way.

  26. #25

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    A shame. I think it's a more interesting area to explore than the usual cliched discussions we have here.
    Very well, then.

    You say it is all about repertoire and history, by which you mean standards. But you ignore the long period between the 1950s and 1980s when jazz was largely made by small groups largely playing original music. You insist we acknowledge social context, so we should consider that the rejection of modern jazz (at the Lincoln Center and elsewhere) was only part of a broader post-modern turn in western culture, that encompassed Chippendale skyscrapers, magic realism and, most importantly for this conversation, the embrace of tradition. The very notion of straight-ahead jazz assumes an historical position in which tradition is the highway and innovation is a cul-de-sac. It ignores the time when we were modern.