The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Posts 1 to 25 of 105
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    well lets just say i think the music has one feature that is both hugely important and very rarely identified explicitly.

    the thing with jazz - unlike other music forms - is to join in not just to listen

    the music is only incidentally a spectator sport - so to speak.

    in its essence it invites participation rather than mere observation or appreciation.

    you can of course listen to the (sometimes recorded) results of people doing it. but the deal is to do it - and only secondarily to listen to it.

    this is not so for classical music or rock or pop or even folk (at least typically). in those musics the main thing with the music is to listen to it or dance to it or both.

    but the point with jazz is that it is what happens when people try to make music up as they go along - together. (or something)

    its all very well to dig it and to dance to it (and you can do forms of those things IN playing it of course) - but the thing is to join in with it properly - to help make it.

    (gospel music comes to mind as having this feature too).

    so for jazz to be really successful as the sort of music it is - would be for more and more people to learn how to do it together.

    that sounds like it might be right (ish) to me - and its interesting too. jazz is a social practice (perhaps the grooviest one ever) - not an art-object to be bought and consumed. bla bla

    i like it - a lot that's interesting would follow from this - if it were right (or nearly right even).

    (it might help to explain why so few people like to listen to it, for one thing.)
    Last edited by Groyniad; 01-19-2016 at 06:36 AM.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    I don't know, jazz comes in all shapes and forms. It can be groovy and singable or it can be abstract and weird. Some of it is really playful and interactive and some of it isn't. Some jazz is just listenable music. Like with Keith Jarrett and bill Evans and 60s miles I think of it as listening music. Free jazz is total listening. You listen to everyone listening.

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

    Jazz is what happens when you think you are doing something that isn't jazz and then someone says to you after the show 'that's jazz.'

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Jazz is what happens when you think you are doing something that isn't jazz and then someone says to you after the show 'that's jazz.'
    Yes, that's pretty much how my own "jazz" hero Billy Jenkins describes it, at around 1:00 here:

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Groyniad
    well lets just say i think the music has one feature that is both hugely important and very rarely identified explicitly.

    the thing with jazz - unlike other music forms - is to join in not just to listen

    the music is only incidentally a spectator sport - so to speak.

    in its essence it invites participation rather than mere observation or appreciation.

    you can of course listen to the (sometimes recorded) results of people doing it. but the deal is to do it - and only secondarily to listen to it.

    this is not so for classical music or rock or pop or even folk (at least typically). in those musics the main thing with the music is to listen to it or dance to it or both.

    but the point with jazz is that it is what happens when people try to make music up as they go along - together. (or something)
    All music - in live performance - is social in some way. It represents the social and cultural values of the society that produces it, and the audience participates in some way, even if only by paying attention and clapping.

    You're right about jazz involving more participation - at least as compared with classical - but it does share that quality to some degree with live rock, blues and folk. Those are all accessible by almost anyone, and clearly made by people who are "like us" - identifying with the performers in some way is integral to all those musics, in a way it's not with classical. With classical it's the vision and imagination of the composer (who may have been dead many centuries) that we are being presented with, albeit filtered through the interpretations of conductor and musicians.

    The author Christopher Small (in Music of the Common Tongue) described how the music of the "African diaspora" - i.e. the music created by slaves and their descendants - introduced (or re-introduced) to western society a whole different way of experiencing music: a living, democratic, truly participatory one. Everyone involved, with no elitist cult of the "genius" composer with a hotline to God. No Beethovens or Mozarts in Africa. In Africa, everyone partakes in music to some degree - if not actually playing an instrument, then singing, clapping and dancing.
    The slaves found some echoes of African music in the folk musics imported from Europe, and naturally adapted what they heard around them. But always for the purposes of creating an event, an social experience that joined people together.
    (The way I like to see it is that the slaves ended up liberating their masters, from the stultifying effects of elitist European culture.)

    The way jazz differs from most other vernacular music is in the degree and status of improvisation. All vernacular music (folk, blues, rock etc) involves some degree of improvisation - even classical music can, in tiny amounts - but in jazz it's central: it's the whole point of the performance.

    That's usually what separates those who don't get jazz: they don't get the idea of improvisation. They want tunes they can recognise, or sing along to, or dance to, or all three. They want to be entertained but, to them, improvisation is just the musicians messing around meaninglessly in the middle for their own interest. ("What's up, have they forgotten how it goes?" )

    Jazz is the one form of western music which has elevated improvisation to a high art, made it its raison d'etre. When a jazz musician composes a tune, he/she creates it primarily as a vehicle for improvisation. That's not the case with composition in any other genre.

    And what that means, in turn, is that live performance is where jazz comes alive. It's a little meaningless when recorded - a jazz recording simply preserves one performance, one possible take of the tune. Naturally that's valuable for future musicians learning the craft, but otherwise a jazz recording is a "dead" artefact. (That's most obvious with "free jazz", which is totally improvised from scratch. A recording of that is a snapshot of one moment in time. No point in replaying it at all. Better to go and watch the musicians do another one.)

    With jazz, you hear music in its pure form, being created in real time. Music only exists while it's being played anyway. How much purer is it when this music at this moment has never been played before and never will be again? It's a unique artistic experience, involving an unusual degree of attention; nothing else quite like it - except maybe raconteurs or comedians who vary their routines all the time. (Like them, when you see a particular musician or band you've seen before, you know the kind of thing you're likely to hear, but never exactly what it's going to be. If you knew that, there'd hardly be any point in going.)

    Of course, you still get jazz that is treated as if it is some kind of classical music, listened to reverentially, usually on record, by aficionados who wouldn't dream of playing anything themselves. The recording business does tend to turn music into that sort of passive consumer activity, degrading live performance (too many unpredictable rough edges, as if that's a bad thing) in favour of "perfect" versions that can be played (in the privacy of one's own home or MP3 player) as many times as one likes.
    There is no "perfect" version of any jazz tune. Performances may vary in quality, but it's always about creating what feels right for that moment. Even if, one night, you play your best performance ever, you won't attempt to re-create it note for note next time - you'll just try to get into the same mood, the same vibe.

    Rock soloists often talk about "writing" a solo, and playing solos the same way every time (copying classic recordings note for note). That's nonsensical to a jazz musician; missing the whole point. (A sign of how much the recording industry has come to dictate terms, by producing classic artefacts frozen in time, that acquire value through repetition.)

  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JonR
    Yes, that's pretty much how my own "jazz" hero Billy Jenkins describes it, at around 1:00 here:
    Haha this is great. I haven't really checked out Billy Jenkins...

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JonR
    All music - in live performance - is social in some way. It represents the social and cultural values of the society that produces it, and the audience participates in some way, even if only by paying attention and clapping.

    You're right about jazz involving more participation - at least as compared with classical - but it does share that quality to some degree with live rock, blues and folk. Those are all accessible by almost anyone, and clearly made by people who are "like us" - identifying with the performers in some way is integral to all those musics, in a way it's not with classical. With classical it's the vision and imagination of the composer (who may have been dead many centuries) that we are being presented with, albeit filtered through the interpretations of conductor and musicians.

    The author Christopher Small (in Music of the Common Tongue) described how the music of the "African diaspora" - i.e. the music created by slaves and their descendants - introduced (or re-introduced) to western society a whole different way of experiencing music: a living, democratic, truly participatory one. Everyone involved, with no elitist cult of the "genius" composer with a hotline to God. No Beethovens or Mozarts in Africa. In Africa, everyone partakes in music to some degree - if not actually playing an instrument, then singing, clapping and dancing.
    The slaves found some echoes of African music in the folk musics imported from Europe, and naturally adapted what they heard around them. But always for the purposes of creating an event, an social experience that joined people together.
    (The way I like to see it is that the slaves ended up liberating their masters, from the stultifying effects of elitist European culture.)

    The way jazz differs from most other vernacular music is in the degree and status of improvisation. All vernacular music (folk, blues, rock etc) involves some degree of improvisation - even classical music can, in tiny amounts - but in jazz it's central: it's the whole point of the performance.

    That's usually what separates those who don't get jazz: they don't get the idea of improvisation. They want tunes they can recognise, or sing along to, or dance to, or all three. They want to be entertained but, to them, improvisation is just the musicians messing around meaninglessly in the middle for their own interest. ("What's up, have they forgotten how it goes?" )

    Jazz is the one form of western music which has elevated improvisation to a high art, made it its raison d'etre. When a jazz musician composes a tune, he/she creates it primarily as a vehicle for improvisation. That's not the case with composition in any other genre.

    And what that means, in turn, is that live performance is where jazz comes alive. It's a little meaningless when recorded - a jazz recording simply preserves one performance, one possible take of the tune. Naturally that's valuable for future musicians learning the craft, but otherwise a jazz recording is a "dead" artefact. (That's most obvious with "free jazz", which is totally improvised from scratch. A recording of that is a snapshot of one moment in time. No point in replaying it at all. Better to go and watch the musicians do another one.)

    With jazz, you hear music in its pure form, being created in real time. Music only exists while it's being played anyway. How much purer is it when this music at this moment has never been played before and never will be again? It's a unique artistic experience, involving an unusual degree of attention; nothing else quite like it - except maybe raconteurs or comedians who vary their routines all the time. (Like them, when you see a particular musician or band you've seen before, you know the kind of thing you're likely to hear, but never exactly what it's going to be. If you knew that, there'd hardly be any point in going.)

    Of course, you still get jazz that is treated as if it is some kind of classical music, listened to reverentially, usually on record, by aficionados who wouldn't dream of playing anything themselves. The recording business does tend to turn music into that sort of passive consumer activity, degrading live performance (too many unpredictable rough edges, as if that's a bad thing) in favour of "perfect" versions that can be played (in the privacy of one's own home or MP3 player) as many times as one likes.
    There is no "perfect" version of any jazz tune. Performances may vary in quality, but it's always about creating what feels right for that moment. Even if, one night, you play your best performance ever, you won't attempt to re-create it note for note next time - you'll just try to get into the same mood, the same vibe.

    Rock soloists often talk about "writing" a solo, and playing solos the same way every time (copying classic recordings note for note). That's nonsensical to a jazz musician; missing the whole point. (A sign of how much the recording industry has come to dictate terms, by producing classic artefacts frozen in time, that acquire value through repetition.)
    I like the sound of that book, will check it out!

    - Well rock musicians used to improvise didn't they?
    - Then, later it moved towards what I called devised improvisation - where the improvisation is done in rehearsal and the result freeze dried for performance (this happens to an extent even for some free improvising groups to be fair.)
    - Now, rock solos seem to be very set in stone, pre composed perhaps.

    I do hear the odd rock jam though - there's one near my home. I find it interesting how the rock improvising sensibility is different to the jazz one. I'd like to hear more of it.

    I think punk may be in part responsible for this - I know that I wrote all my solos when I was playing in indie bands back in the day... Improv was wanking! But also, I suspect the same is true of metal and other less mainstream, more virtuoso styles of rock.

    That said, it was common during the big band era for soloists to have to learn their solos exactly as recorded. So rock didn't invent this...

    You could say of course big band music isn't really jazz, but I would disagree. (I have my own idea of what jazz is - and isn't - in any case that no one else seems to agree with. Perhaps they don't realise that I HAVE SPOKEN!!!!!)

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    its why there's such a thing as 'rhythm section' in jazz - but in no other music form

    (which is not to say there aren't basses and drums and chordal instruments in other music - they're not called 'the rhythm section' or anything like it - and, i'm suggesting, for good reason)

    the rs provides for the possibility of joining in - and of a range of other musicians (in principle unlimited) to join in.

    and the rs itself could be indefinitely large too - as long as everyone was sensitive about doing complementary or matching things.

    and the important point made above - that you damn well don't join in with the bill evans trio etc. etc. - that the music has become too sophisticated now to be a participatory form - invites an obvious response:

    - the more time we put into playing music together which we make up as we go along together - the better we get at it and the more nuanced and technically demanding joining in becomes.

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    Let me try and throw a wrench in this whole thing. Where do whole pieces containing no improvisation written and played by "jazz" musicians, purposely written and intended as a jazz piece fall? If there is no improve, is it "jazz"? There are countless examples of this throughout the greater jazz idiom. Is it all Third Stream then or is it a non-jazz composition with jazz like tendencies?

    I don't one have an answer. I will agree that Improve is a core tenet of jazz, but jazz is not a three legged stool.

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

    jon R said...
    (Like them, when you see a particular musician or band you've seen before, you know the kind of thing you're likely to hear, but never exactly what it's going to be. If you knew that, there'd hardly be any point in going.)

    Point taken...but here is a reason why many people WANT the live performance of rock/pop style music to be "just like the record" A paraphrased quote from Glen Frey..

    "..we played the backround music of peoples lives.."

    and yes..people have inner experiences of their lives that are connected to a song and they want to "re-live" it..they want to feel the same way they did when they heard that song on the radio or wherever they heard it..(the backseat of a car perhaps) so that dynamic is built in rock/pop live performances..people go to "revival" concerts to hear groups they grew up with..the want the songs to be note for note the same..no room to improvise in this stuff..being that the Eagles are going to get a lot of airplay for the next few weeks...when they were a top touring band .. imagine them playing Hotel California and they decided to just ramble with that classic two guitar solo..People would boo and demand their money back..

    on the flip side is "soft jazz" by some top names..they will play note for note the head of their popular tunes..but then improv over the changes to a slight degree or an extream depending..if the artist played the solos note for note as on a recording of the tune..yeah -- booing and all that..the audience in this case wants the musicians to let loose..(expose themselves-as it were)

    and somewhere in the middle are performers that seem to have the ability to do the same thing and make it different every time...James Brown comes to mind..

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    or you could say if improv is such a big part of jazz, does that make other improvised music part of jazz?

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jazzguy100
    or you could say if improv is such a big part of jazz, does that make other improvised music part of jazz?
    Not to me it doesn't.

    I mean, if it did, then you'd have to include Indian music under 'jazz' for example.

    But then, on the highest level there is only music.

    Even improvisation and the playing of other compositions are not really different things.

    Because, I believe that for a true improvisor there is no such thing as 'choice', any more than there is for someone playing a Bach fugue. And JS Bach had no 'choice' when he composed that piece.
    Last edited by christianm77; 01-19-2016 at 06:46 PM.

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Groyniad
    its why there's such a thing as 'rhythm section' in jazz - but in no other music form

    (which is not to say there aren't basses and drums and chordal instruments in other music - they're not called 'the rhythm section' or anything like it - and, i'm suggesting, for good reason)

    the rs provides for the possibility of joining in - and of a range of other musicians (in principle unlimited) to join in.

    and the rs itself could be indefinitely large too - as long as everyone was sensitive about doing complementary or matching things.

    and the important point made above - that you damn well don't join in with the bill evans trio etc. etc. - that the music has become too sophisticated now to be a participatory form - invites an obvious response:

    - the more time we put into playing music together which we make up as we go along together - the better we get at it and the more nuanced and technically demanding joining in becomes.
    The continuo group in Baroque music is similar to a rhythm section in many ways.

    Playing in one is a very similar experience in someways. Keep the groove, keep the music dancing, realise the harmony in sympathy to the soloists. More experienced players can sometimes respond in improvised counterpoint.

    Contemporary accounts of Monteverdi's orchestras suggest there was a whole forest of plucked strings - guitars, lutes, chittarones, harps - which sound quite different to the rather meagre harpsichord, chittarone and violone combination you find in most period ensembles for budgetary reasons....
    Last edited by christianm77; 01-19-2016 at 06:29 PM.

  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    These days, practically anything with a 7th chord...

    Popular music is devolving, soon a third will be to much color...

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    you don't even need to go that far to distinguish jazz from improvised music.

    the problem is with style of jazz. it needs to sound a certain way, feel a certain way, look a certain way. that's what i can't stand, the restrictions. to me, it doesnt need to sound like anything. I use it as a describing word.

    I like that last line you said "for a true improvisor there is no such thing as 'choice'". can you ellaborate?

  17. #16

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jazzguy100
    you don't even need to go that far to distinguish jazz from improvised music.

    the problem is with style of jazz. it needs to sound a certain way, feel a certain way, look a certain way. that's what i can't stand, the restrictions. to me, it doesnt need to sound like anything. I use it as a describing word.

    I like that last line you said "for a true improvisor there is no such thing as 'choice'". can you ellaborate?
    Then don't play 'jazz' (BTW FWIW Jazz for me is a specific polymetric rhythmic language lending itself to communal improvisation and strongly linked to other African diaspora forms. The harmony and instrumentation are unimportant to the definition.)

    The 'choice' statement, it comes from the concept of the music playing you rather than the other way around. If you are playing really well, something takes over and you simply watch yourself. You have no choice or control in the matter.

    (You will probably need an initial conscious spark - a starting point.)

    For me it happens in short bursts, maybe a bar or two, sometimes it might last for longer. The aim of being a musician, for me, is to stay in that zone for longer and longer....

    Most musicians - performers, improvisors and composers - report similar experiences.
    Last edited by christianm77; 01-19-2016 at 06:48 PM.

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JonR

    The author Christopher Small (in Music of the Common Tongue) described how the music of the "African diaspora" - i.e. the music created by slaves and their descendants - introduced (or re-introduced) to western society a whole different way of experiencing music: a living, democratic, truly participatory one. Everyone involved, with no elitist cult of the "genius" composer with a hotline to God. No Beethovens or Mozarts in Africa.
    Sorry but that is just plain wrong. Here's a simple test: Romania had no African slaves therefore there should be no continuous history of village-level folk music in Romania. For Romania you can substitute Ireland, France, Scotland - who wrote all that bagpipe music? Definitely not Mozart!

    No elitist cult of composer/performer in Africa? Malian music is full of famous musical dynasties.

    Your overall post may be accurate but this paragraph is just bullshit.

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    I avoid the general term "jazz" by itself, since it's so ambiguous and means something different to everyone. If I'm talking about a style of music I want to be more specific than "jazz".

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    I tend to go with a color analogy approach.

    Jazz - all the colors in the spectrum arranged in both linear and nonlinear fashion
    Classical - all the colors in the spectrum arranged in linear fashion
    Rock - bright to darkish primary colors arranged in linear fashion
    Pop - bright, bold primary colors arranged in linear fashion
    Grunge/metal - darkish muted colors arranged in linear fashion
    Country - mutated primary colors arranged in linear fashion
    Blues...

  21. #20

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Groyniad
    its why there's such a thing as 'rhythm section' in jazz - but in no other music form

    (which is not to say there aren't basses and drums and chordal instruments in other music - they're not called 'the rhythm section' or anything like it - and, i'm suggesting, for good reason)
    Is this a Scottish perspective? A rhythm section can exist for any type of music that uses one. I've certainly been a member of many non-jazz rhythm sections.

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    Labels are tricky.

    I like Music "Labels" because they can be a kind of guide for Composition or Rhythms ( especially )or playing or describing to other Musicians ( or Singers) what you are going for Artistically/Stylistically ...or even Marketing .

    But most Musical labels have exceptions and lots of overlap into other areas ...

    And becoming more familiar with Jazz and being able to almost instantly play almost anything on my phone...( yes my Phone NOT on my Guitar - it is much easier to play Michael Brecker and especially Art Tatum Blues lines from 1947 -1948 - on my Phone than on my Guitar).

    Jazz is a vast musical Category- hard to define precisely especially at the fringes or the 'scope' ..

    People hear things differently too especially non Musicians and they are not necessarily correct or incorrect...

    ....maybe whoever is "buying" or paying for the Music or Gig is " right" is a good rule to follow...but I'm sure there are exceptions to that also.
    Last edited by Robertkoa; 02-17-2016 at 03:04 PM.

  23. #22

    User Info Menu

    I'm not sure I understand something...jazz is participatory? since when?

    I thought the whole point of playing All the Things You Are in the key of C# is to keep out the riff-raff?

  24. #23

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JonR
    Yes, that's pretty much how my own "jazz" hero Billy Jenkins describes it, at around 1:00 here:
    Brilliant - love Billy Jenkins!

    Remember seeing him on long gone BBC2 TV jazz programme playing a savage free jazz version of Close To You!

  25. #24

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Banksia
    Sorry but that is just plain wrong. Here's a simple test: Romania had no African slaves therefore there should be no continuous history of village-level folk music in Romania.
    You're misreading what I'm saying (my bad).
    I was talking about how African-American music broke down the hegemony of the European classical tradition, in a way that European folk music never managed to. (I know that's still an oversimplification )
    Quote Originally Posted by Banksia
    No elitist cult of composer/performer in Africa? Malian music is full of famous musical dynasties.
    I'm well aware of that and it's a fair point. I didn't mean to suggest Africa is a homogenous continent!

  26. #25

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rkwestcoast
    Brilliant - love Billy Jenkins!

    Remember seeing him on long gone BBC2 TV jazz programme playing a savage free jazz version of Close To You!
    Allow me:

    2:10 - love it...
    and 3:30 when he sprays half-chewed apple over the audience.
    Last edited by JonR; 02-17-2016 at 03:27 PM.