The User's Forum has, to the best of my knowledge, a single Jazz musician making contributions: ME! Another User Forum member - one of the most talented - has made insightful comments and suggested a group discussion to take up the issue.

You know, people have told me regularly that they don't like Jazz. No problem, it's what I expect. What makes me suspicious are non-musicians who claim to like Jazz. I never ask them, but I'm sorely tempted to ask, "Exactly what is it about Jazz that you like?" I used to characterize Jazz as "music for musicians." But even that needs modification to "music for some musicians."

The member mentioned above is fortified not just by talent, but also by a generous supply of candor that I especially appreciate. When he came right out and said he didn't like a particular Jazz vocal (Moody's Mood for Love), I tried to put myself inside his head and made the following return comments:

(1)Lyricism. As a superb lyricist and singer, you want and expect lyricism - music that has the potential for supporting emotionally laden lyrics. Simple chords (and not too many of 'em) work best, and country guitar is an art in itself. If you can get lyricism in a Jazz solo, great, but there are competing goals. For me, the purpose of a solo is to illuminate the chord changes in new ways, build excitement, throw some surprises, etc. If your solo isn't as interesting as the melody itself, why bother with it at all? Just play the melody over again instead.

(2) Chaos. This really jumped out at me in your comments on Moody's Mood. You explained why you didn't like it and used the word chaotic. I think that pins it down for many not drawn to Jazz - lots and lots and lots of notes. Incoherent, chaotic notes. Jazz is disorder that hides deeper order, but no one said that perceiving it is easy, immediate, or for most folks even possible.

What is the deeper order? Do the points made in (1)-(2), above, ring a bell? The last year that statistics were gathered for CD sales was 2008. Jazz sales accounted for 1.1 percent of the market, classical music 1.8. The blues didn't get a category of its own, and was lumped together with Rhythm and Blues & Urban. This category showed miniscule sales as well. Do these fields do poorly for the same reason, or does each have its own problems?

Let me know what you think.

Aleck Rand

IMO....

My music of preference is likely far more narrow than most here.
I'm no aficionado but I'll give a bump.

I've heard some jazz over the years that I find quite appealing and not as 'chaotic' sounding as others.
My dislike of jazz rears it's head when the notes/scales/key changes gets into an aimless frenzy of improvisation.
Increase the tempo 120mph and I lose more interest
It can sound like rapid, self indulgent noodling rather than a lyrical sounding song with a coherent melodic theme that gets revisited at certain points in the song.

So...maybe I just prefer the lighter (dare I say 'smooth') jazz renditions by default.

Should be interesting to here other responses.

That's my take on your query.
Carry on....

EDIT: my comments are not a reflection of the level of musicianship of jazz musicians....a 'level' that I will never achieve in this lifetime.

Umm, have you seen my username and post count? There's no doubt jazz is declining and I've posted about that many times. Biab used to be criticized for being too jazz oriented and if you look at the oldest styles you can see that's true but those styles are over 20 years old now. It's telling that the very first Real Tracks and Drums were mostly jazz styles but not any more. The amount of rock, country, ethnic and other non jazz stuff is much larger now.

Times, they are a'changin to quote Dylan. Imho jazz is nearly dead, hell even on the best jazz station in the country, KJazz here in LA, traditional straight ahead jazz is declining. I haven't done a technical survey or anything but just listening off and on it seems like "real" jazz is less than 50% now. I'll bet within 5 years, it will be gone. The rest is blues and modern post bop smooth jazz. Two recent DJ's reinforce that, Davit Benoit in the mornings and Kenny G in the evenings.

And then there's that abomination of music, the Billboard Awards last night. It was pretty bad as far as live music was concerned. There were no real bands and live players except for the very end when Prince won the "Icon" award and he closed the show with his band. Prior to that, squat except for one very lame trumpet player in a rap song and one stumming country singer.

As far at this forum is concerned the vast majority of posters are different styles of guitarists, folk, rock, country etc. From what I see, there's a handful of keyboard players here.

Bob

Even to me, Music with lyrics is grabs you bit more than some amount of other music.

Don't have the vocal abilities of most of you so delve into instrumental world more.

On my YouTube channel the Jazz based videos are the most watched.
This was and is a total surprise to me. Could be its is found easier, or
there is a silent group out there that like Jazz.

The noodling comment above is so true, but also the easy going versions of jazz
can be very nice to simply listen to.

I feel small next to so many of you and your absolutely first grade professional
music you create, then share.

I’m definitely not an expert on jazz, but just to give my 2 cents, I think somewhere along the line the upper echelon of jazz musicians forgot that music is supposed to be musical, aka “pleasing to the ears”.

While there’s nothing wrong with challenging the listener occasionally, you’re not going to grow or even maintain a fan base if everything you play is so far outside the lines that people grow weary listening to it.

Highly skilled musicians like the top jazz players obviously want more challenging material just to keep themselves interested, but unless they bring the audience along for the ride by playing music that their listeners can comprehend and enjoy, ...... they’ll just be playing for the amusement of the others in the band.

You can call that “dumbing down” the music if you like, but it shouldn’t take a Masters Degree in Music Theory to enjoy a song. The old jazz songs pulled you in with melody, harmony and the musical ability of the players while a lot of newer stuff dares you to get close enough to listen.

This is just the musings of an old flatpicker that’s always loved playing jazz influenced acoustic music, aka New Acoustic, Newgrass, Jazzgrass, Progressive Bluegrass and Dawg music.

Hi Aleck,


What am I, chopped liver?

I've participated in these forums darn near every day for more than ten years.

And I love to play Blues, Jazz, Modern Jazz, Bebop and Abstract Truth.

While I also have played a lot of pop, rock, soul, r&b, even disco as a sideman or session musician, it is all based upon my knowledge gained from first the classical musics as a lad and then the Jazz.

I have played jazz trumpet, guitar and piano or hammond organ at the pro level for more years than I'd care to think about at this point.

Maybe by "user forum" you might mean one of the forums other than the main BB for Windows forum, where I hold court mostly...


Straightahead,


--Mac

How do you feel about classical, Bob? The same?

Yes it does take education and acquired taste to enjoy both genre's, classical and jazz. I've said it many times here, jazz is rapidly taking it's deserved place next to classical and it will continue to be taught and heard in the same way as well. Taught in universities and heard at selected concerts. The highly educated crowd is not enough to maintain a national presence for jazz. The local small jazz scene is almost gone, you can still find it but it's not easy anymore. I'm guessing it's mostly found in the big college towns now just like at one big town in the midwest had a string quartet in a local pub. Music students will dig it but nobody else.

I'm not being elitist at all but look at history. Why do they call the 50's and early 60's the golden age of TV? It's because at that time TV's were quite expensive and only the upper middle class and higher could afford one so those are the people the shows were aimed at so the quality was much higher. Somebody with a Master's degree in anything is not interested in Gilligans Island or He Haw. Note those shows didn't happen until the explosion of more affordable TV's in the mid to late 60's. I remember reading and having lots of conversations about the loss of good TV. Prior to that it was Your Show of Shows with Sid Ceasar and Steve Allen because that comedy was complex and required some intellect to appreciate. Same as the music of that era, jazz. It's been in a long, slow decline since. But I fully realize it's only in a decline from my educated old fart point of view, the vast majority of people one generation behind me don't see it that way at all. They say good riddance.

How many times have a lot of us here mentioned the state or lack of it of the current education system in the US? This is the reason for the Billboard show last night, no more music appreciation classes. Five percent of that show was actually musical, the rest is something else and don't ask me to define it, I have no clue.

No doubt the kids love it, the MGM Grand venue is the same one they have the big fights in, it seats over 15,000 and it was packed plus parts of the show was broadcast from other casinos and those rooms were totally packed too. I wouldn't be surprised if the Billboard Awards brought over 100,000 young adults to Vegas. It looked like 95% of the crowd was 21-28. That is the future of "music".

Of course, not totally yet. It takes time for the millennials to make their presence felt but as they get older and can afford to spend more, what I saw last night will become the current mainstream and pretty much all of our various styles of "classic" music will be gone. The 80's big hair bands, classic funk, rock and roll, jazz, all of it.

We'll be having this completely irrelevant discussion at the nursing home.

Bob

Bob,

Definitely not! I LOVE classical music. But to be honest, I haven’t listened to any modern compositions that I can recall. So I have no idea if modern classical is getting too “chaotic”.

Two of the best live performances I’ve ever been to were both string quartets in small venues. I was mesmerized. It was the same group of young ladies and they were flawless. They were the resident string quartet for the WV Symphony. If I recall correctly, they called themselves The Montclair String Quartet.

You may have mistakenly concluded that I don’t like jazz, but that would be incorrect. But almost all of the jazz I like is older songs, with people like George Benson, Johnny Smith and Joe Pass playing guitar. They were masters at drawing you into the songs.

And now, … you didn’t just use a Hee Haw reference did you? LOL.

I never have and probably never will watch a Billboards Music Awards show, but I did see where Kid Rock, (whom I definitely am NOT a fan of), said this:

"Let's give it up for people lip-synching under pre-recorded music,"

I would guess that was an accurate description of what followed.

Oh, let me tell ya Bob, it wasn't easy trying to follow that show last night. It was so, so, strange to me all I did was listen to maybe 30 seconds of each segment and then fast forward. Between that and the commercials I did the whole thing in about an hour. It was hell, I'm telling you. I just had this morbid curiosity if there was anything real there. Very little.

The thing is don't forget all of our beloved classic tunes were all on the Billboard Top 100 and were all featured on the Awards shows back in the day and look where those tunes are now. Somehow I just can't imagine a classic whateverthehell you call it revival in 20 years with people going yeah, that was the real deal dude, they don't make music like that any more. And those now middle aged folks will absolutely hate whatever is current then.

And the cycle continues.

Bob

On my personal taste for jazz, I'll echo Bobflatpicker. If it gets too far out "noodling" too long then I get bored but that doesn't mean I don't like or enjoy listening to any of it.

Jazz is alive and doing well in the D.C. area. You can find smooth jazz to avant garde around here. I play middle-of -the-road jazz at a well known hotel that features different kinds of music on a regular basis. There are at least two schools for the arts in D.C. They have very good student big bands that play around the area, even Blues Alley. Then there are the Military Bands, full of outstanding jazzmen and women. Most of the upscale restaurants have solo jazz pianists or duos working. You need to check out more of this forum and you'll see that there are quite a few jazzmen here. You probably know this already but all the vocals of "Moody's Mood For Love" are words put to his improvisation on "I'm In The Mood For Love" back in the late '40s or early 50s. His solo is neither chaotic or noodling. Anyone with a decent ear can tell that he's cooking on the changes! He even sang it himself on gigs after words were put to it. Later, Ray

It's not dead, but (please correct me as I'm not a student of the genre), the 'free jazz', directionless noodling that for many is unpleasant to the ears, did the same for jazz as Stravinsky and company did for orchestral music.

Sure, it 'advanced' the genre, but it lost it's popularity with the general public.

For the record, my 7th grader's .mp3 player is about half full of Coltrane, Getz, Parker, Gordon etc. (can you tell he's a sax nut?)

No, he didn't get this stuff from the radio, nor from iTunes, but from dear old dad's CD collection (which I have purposely seeded with jazz greats amongst bluegrass, classical, rock, country and gospel greats as well. The big network of Goodwill stores in our town gives me access to cheap used CDs (usually $1.99) and the CD collection has at least doubled in the past 4 years with my addiction of finding great music on the cheap.)

I like Miles Davis' "Birth of the Cool" (I have the version with the studio cuts and live cuts,) but man - his later avant garde stuff just grates on me.

Coltrane: Give me the smooth melody of Naima over the rambling (though I'm sure some understand it) noodling of Blue Train.

Just for one example of where jazz likely loses this listener - though this was a very popular Coltrane tune from my understanding.

In my opinion, which I think mirror's bobcflatpicker's comments, is there is a point with any type of music where the cleverness of the music outruns the general public's ability to enjoy it and follow it.

Whatever happened to progressive rock, where the great prog rock groups enjoyed massive popularity (Yes for example)?

Dream Theater is one band that is known (probably the most accessible and popular active prog rock band in existence today), but you won't hear a Dream Theater song on the radio unless it's some special show on a late night at a college radio station. As for chops, Jordan Rudess from Dream Theater can likely play/sight read/improvise the socks off of most classical pianists, jazz pianists, rock keyboardists, and so forth. But the music is almost too technically complex. He's selling apps for iOS devices.

What happened to choral music? My sister has a gig in Indianapolis as a first call soprano for a couple of college choir publishing companies - for their demo CDs. Most of the stuff is so technically 'out there' it's just noise. Rarely is it anthemic, epic, pastoral, etc. Simply just syllabic noise.

So, I guess to close up this bit of a ramble - I think what has happened to jazz is true for nearly every 'respected' genre of music. It's not gone for good, but there probably is a bit of reaction to the too technically clever flavors of it.

DC has always been cool Ray and I'm glad to hear it still is. When I got out of the Air Force in 1968 I worked for IBM on the corner of Connecticut and K for about 18 months and prior to that I was stationed at NSA in Fort Meade for 18 months so I was there about 3 years. Loved it in spite of the weather.

Here in LA there is plenty of good jazz but it's all at high end places up in the Hollywood and Burbank area. $10 covers, two drink minimums and all more or less big names with recording contracts who are either promoting their latest or working in some new players for their next tour. It's great to go occasionally for a night out. I've seen Dave Weckl, Jeff Lorber, Alex Acuna and the like. Oh yeah there's the House of Blues too lots of big acts there like Spyro Gyra, The Yellowjackets, Tower of Power. $20-30 at the door plus valet parking. If you're not one of those names, there's little for you out here.

I have a friend who moved here from New York about 15 years ago, grad of Berklee on piano, plays his butt off, sings like pretty much anybody, killer performer. He wasn't making it in NY so he thought he would try the studios here through Local 47. 15 years, not one studio gig and the usual collection of casuals like we all get. He's a full time teacher now.

Bob

I think he was referring to the user showcase forum where people post their original songs. In that arena Aleck does seem to be the only jazz contributor (lately.... there have been others who posted original jazz tunes, but their main genre was always something other than jazz)

Aleck, there are actually quite a few forum members who play jazz, but they just don't participate in the user showcase for whatever reason.

It isn't really sufficient to address this question according to a general category "jazz", since Jazz comes in so many flavors.

Many of us are quite fond of some jazz, and less fond of other jazz. My preference is for melodic music, and therefore I don't particularly like dissonance. Some flavors of Jazz can venture pretty far into the blue notes, and although I find it interesting from a theoretical point of view, I don't find it pleasant to listen to.

On the other hand, I find jazz artists like Johnny Smith, Hank Garland etc (whose chordal melodies amaze me) quite enjoyable.

My reason for not PLAYING jazz is that in North Carolina there's more demand for just about every other kind of music, so it boils down to commercial viability

The follow-up question to people who don't like Jazz is: How do you define Jazz? What is Jazz to you?.

If I tell them about Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman (nobody seems to know Lucky Millinder, so I don't mention him), or "Dixieland" then they like it. But they still don't like Jazz. Usually, they don't know what Jazz is.

They relate Jazz to some special music for special folks, played late at night and often it seems to be music to drive people into other activities.

It's like:
If somebody doesn't like Whisky -- often it is related to Scotch whisky -- but if they like Cognac, start with Canadian Club, go to some very mellow Bourbon whiskies to eventually 50 or 60 bottles of refreshments to finish with a fine 25 years aged single barrel cask strengh Laphroaig. (Don't start with the latter!!!)

People need to understand the music they are listening to, and Archie Shepp, for instance, is sometimes hard to understand. And consequently music they don't understand is Jazz.

There is no more wrong with jazz than there is with any genre. Some good, some mediocre, some bad. What is good or bad is decided by the listener because that is his/her world. It all boils down to taste. When you mention sales statistics is just goes to show that people are not buying music to listen to, but as background noise or group experience, or just to dance to. Like the tv in some homes, it's always on but nobody watches.
You don't need to be a musician to be able to listen to music, but you need to be able to listen.

Think about it a minute.

Many jazz players like to improvise over "standards" - which are invariably copyrighed materials.

The Forum Rules get in the way of that, though.

And, while there are jazzers who write their own material, I think you will find far more who are not writers but prefer to improvise over the copyrighted songs already out there in the jazz world.


--Mac

.
One of my prefessors explained it this way: "people want to hear a line."

There is something deep in our psyche that demands to see faces. So much so that we will find face-like patterns in abstract designs. in art we look for faces. Abstract art moved away from that, and became something very different from what it had been. Photography and film took over the job of telling stories through pictures. Art became more cerebral, more elitist and less connected to the daily lives of average people.

Classical music did something similar in the 20th century. I think it was Schoenberg who made the shift permanent. The music lost its connection to its former audience in a similar way to what art had done. Since then various forms of popular music have arisen to fill people's need to hear a hummable melody.

Jazz has done the same thing. It might have been inevitable, considering the monumental level of technical expertise acheived by Bird and some of the other postwar innovators. They mastered all the traditional chops and then went far past them. Along the way they gave up their focus on catchy tunes by choice.

I understand these musicians need to look for new challenges in expressing themselves. Goodness knows they have earned the right to do so. Is that a problem? Not for me. It just gives me more choices and more ways to suit my listening mood.

If the performer is not bothering to create Musical or Lyrical jazz lines in their improvisational examples, I tend to lose interest quickly.

It is my opinion that jazz should not be a contest about who can play the most complex thing.


--Mac

...and by the way...notice that country music fans make similar complaints...

"Thats not country"

"Thats just rock and roll..."

"kids these days...what are they listening to?..."

..and so on. Its been going on for decades and yet country is a long way from being dead.

I think the general decline in interest in jazz, classical, and other (dare we say thinking people's?) music coincides with the subtraction of music education from public schools. Where else, except in rare instances of family or close friends, is a child likely to be exposed to a forward-looking, skilled musician who is willing to pass on his or her enthusiasm for instruments and genres not generally heard on the radio? Any kid these days can tell you where to get contraceptives, not so much about the 12 (jazz) chords and their inversions, or know what a downbeat is besides what you do to that kid in the class that nobody likes. What's left is children who, if they have any interest in playing music at all, want to learn pop songs or be a DJ. You can keep all that technical crap as far as they are concerned. Now, where's that Xbox controller?

I can echo Mac's sentiments......and also endorse Pat Marr's approach to Jazz.
I have composed some Ragtime & Traddie pieces, and I have played the Edinburgh International Jazz Fest for the last 11 years.
But Trad Jazz in Scotland, (although it packs them in for Jazz Fests).....is very scarce for the rest of the time.
Joe G.

my wife used to describe this phenomenon as "the emperor's new music"

(If you aren't familiar with the classic tale of the emperor's new clothes, you won't catch her meaning)

another description might be "institutionalized crap" meaning something the elitists have blessed, and therefore anybody who doesn't like it must be neanderthal, so nobody will speak their true opinion.

My summary is that if an artist's main goal is to be "different", then anything goes, and the public may not like it. But if the artist's goal is to rediscover beauty in a new way, it seems that everybody in every culture embraces beauty.

Bingo, that is my story and I am sticking to it.

IMO....musically speaking it's all been played or done before by someone.
As touched upon above it's up to us as writers/composers to create a song that is refreshing and performed/delivered in an appealing fashion regardless of the genre.

That's the big challenge along with a convincing personal performance becomes key to it's appeal.

That's my take on it.

Carry on....

I don't think it has all been played yet at all.

Part of the continuous process is that a music development must first be recognizable by the public, and that can take time.

For example, a lot of the changes and even chords that are common today were not in common use a few hundred years ago, sometimes for reasons of the technology, for example, the Just Intonation was not able to sound many of these chords properly such that they sound cacaphonous, that had to wait until the Tempered Scale came into use by the majority, in other cases, the human ear development as to what was acceptable just wasn't there, as in the case of the Tritone, which is hiding in every dominant 7th chord.

The Blues had to wait until the people could digest the Blues Chord. etc.

There is still a lot of music out there somewhere.


--Mac

Jazz ...modern jazz composition...a lil jazz...a lil classic...add a lil scat...a lil Dixieland...


Which I was thoroughly "weened on" internationally known Chicago Institue of Design (a masters in nude drawing......

...while our swingin' Wells Street BEIDERBECK SWING BAND,
Dixieland "slammers'.... played Dixie Jazz...to jolt their artistic pursuits...

located above all these artists, performers, adonisis, venus0-tyo models..

... "the artistes and lovely models "doing wonderful things with their pastels, accrylli and clay....SCULTURING TO DIXIELAND STREET MUSIC! SO COOL FOR THE ASPIRING ARTISTS!...AND US BANDMEMBERS!
baby...just wet clay in their talented hands...and valves, reeds and wet strings in ours


Sun Rae or Ornette, Herbert Laws....GREAT STUFF FROM OUTSIDE!

OUR OWN MAT...with his oblique right turns, and definitely cool sounds....out of the box, perky trumpit-lipped flights of the space jazz..he's our only truly Professor of musical knowledge and the coolest multi-instrumentalist this side of Havana!!

Says GDaddy, and you can quote me from the Jazz Nut House...

Doooobe BlahDo-Dah

Do Dah Dway

Shoobie Doooobi Doooooo

Down on de Farn

Potato Solid!!!

...just wait till we make it upstairs with Matt, and all the rest of the BIAB talent from this sick, sick, earthgig!+

I agree with Mac.

Especially when you add in the fact that the skill level of the top musicians in any genre today is much greater than the people they emulated growing up.

There’s still lots of new music to be played.

Guess I kinda opened a can o' worms when I told the emperor he had no clothes (@Pat - that's how I've always thought of it, too...)

I have to say... I am enjoying it....

Janice and I played in bluegrass bands for years. Over that time I saw many of my friends and favorite artists venture into jazz. Although jazz players might consider me a "non musician" as a bluegrass player, I like jazz. Two events turned me to my love of jazz.

1. Ken Burns history of Jazz.

2. Listening to Billie Holiday and Lester Young. I will NEVER grow tired of that no matter what genre I'm currently listening to the most. It is IMO the pinnacle of expression of the human voice and an instrument in the same tune.

Bebop, I have nothing against but once a song or an entire genre move beyond my ability to at least envision the chord structure I tend to check out. That's my problem.

Jazz died in 1959

Jazz is alive and well. Good Jazz clubs here in Atlanta, GA with some awesome performers. I've seen discussions about Blues being dead as well.... no freakin' way. I think, some genres and the way music is being produced within them may have changed, but the root is still there for either genre and appreciated by many, many people.

Just my penny of thoughts.

It is much a matter of taste, methinks, there are plenty of jazz performers and outfits that I love, there are also plenty that do not float my personal boat.

I just can't stand it when someone stereotypes and attempts to put all into one boat. A sure sign of something else going on that ain't nice.


--Mac

Really? I must have missed the memo. That's exactly when I started playing it.

One main reason if not the main reason for musical innovation is survival as in making enough money to live on.

At some point in the early 60's most of the jazz cats realized they could not make a good living recording yet another version of Stella or whatever. Plus after 10 years of doing those standards in studios and concerts they were simply burned out, bored, you name it with that stuff so they started branching out.

That's why Miles suddenly quit doing that stuff and turned to [*****] Brew and despite many pleadings from all quarters he refused to play another lick of his old standards. The majority of the record buying public didn't need more recordings of different versions of those tunes.

For me, I'm tired of that stuff too but I still play it from time to time. I'm much more into the modern post bop stuff by all the smooth jazz artists like David Benoit, Foreplay, Spyro Gyra, David Sanborn, etc. It's hard to realize that stuff is already old enough to be considered classic music now. Fourplay released their first album in 1991. It's now 2013, how many years is that again?

I've accumulated a whole collection of live jazz concerts from You Tube. They are mostly the big jazz festivals like Montreal, Playboy, Newport, the North Sea one etc. There's been very little straight ahead in any of those shows for the last 10-15 years.

And why is that? Just mho of course but I think the audience for that style has left the building and has retired.

The reason you don't hear too much modern jazz in clubs is it's pretty complex stuff, you can't have a bunch of good players show up for a gig with no rehearsal and read South American Sojourn by Spyro Gyra or Watersign by Jeff Lorber from a fake book like you can with tunes like My Funny Valentine or Footprints.

Moderators, the forum is censoring [*****] Brew? Really?

Bob

Bob,

It kind of sounds like what you’re saying is that old jazzers wanted to write and perform music that was exclusionary! (Wow! I didn’t know “exclusionary” was an actual word! )

In other words, “the only way you can play with me is to be able to pull this song off”. It wouldn’t have been phrased that way of course, but do you think that’s a factor?

This was the basic point I was trying to make - but I think Flatfoot perhaps made it more succinctly.

-Scott

I wouldn't call it exclusionary Bob, they just wanted to write good stuff, they were tired of the old formulaic chord changes and basic swing or latin rhythms. Take this for example:

Catwalk by Don Grusin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD1OXTrw7Tk

I absolutely love this tune and I have charted it out but I doubt I'll ever perform it live because good luck getting the guys together to rehearse this. The basic soloing section is easy but the horn lines and that theme? Not so much. This is what I call good fusion music, sort of classical/jazz. I like that violin.

I seriously doubt Grusin wrote that with the thought "Ha, try sitting in with this!" No, it's just good writing.

The thing to remember is all these guys are well educated masters of the old standards even though they don't perform them often. I found a vid of Jeff Lorber in a jam session doing Giant Steps. He played the absolute crap out of it. It was obvious he had studied it in school and knew it inside and out.

Bob

“Catwalk” is a great tune. That’s the first time I’ve heard it.

One thing that jumped out at me from the “get-go” was the theme of the song. Nothing seemed gratuitous on the part of the soloists. But it did appear to be far removed from a lot of the modern jazz I’ve heard over the years.

There’s a melody, lyricism and a flow to it.

But I definitely wouldn’t want to try to put together a band that could play it!

What Mac said. I play in a big band called "Big Band Therapy" - 17+ pieces and 3 girls on vocals - we have a great time, BUT we have 2 tenor sax players...:

One is very old school (reasonable, he's over 70) who plays some of the most beautiful, melodious solos I've ever heard. The other comes from a much more modern school. He plays very, very well. His skill is incredible but mostly his solos leave me a little cold - they seem to be more about technical ability than melody. That said, I've also heard him play stuff that almost brings me to tears, but that is the exception, mostly it's just technique.

Don't get me wrong, I like both their playing, but if I was paying to hear them and they both had a concert on at the same night, I'd go for the melodious guy every time.



Dunno what he's smokin' but keep it away from me... What a depressing set of thoughts that was, I wish I didn't read it

=========

FWIW, I like jazz (Motown and Soul too), but not all jazz... I like Big Band Swing, I like Dixie, I like Boogie Woogie, I like some Bebop, but the closer to contemporary jazz we get the less I seem to like it...

Perhaps what jazz needs is new tunes in the old styles - new standards that can emerge that have a contemporary connection but with the musicality and chord structures that made the older styles so cool.

That said, when Big Band Therapy play, you would be surprised at how much the current generation of kids seem to connect. Admittedly we play some more recent stuff too, particularly rock tunes from the 60's and 70's, but you might be surprised how well numbers from the 20's, 30's and 40's go down.

Watching them get up and jig around (hardly seems right to call it dancing sometimes but ya get that) is such a buzz. I love to see people enjoying themselves because we're playing music!

Modern, atonal jazz is just noise to me. Even less appealing than Rap (sorry, Hip Hop) which just seems to be an expression of unbridled anger and even cruelty.

Perhaps the real blame lies with the record companies who have been teaching successive generations that a rhythm section is a real, full band or orchestra and that you only need 3 major triads and if you're really adventurous maybe a minor triad (forget those fancy 7th chords) and a pretty girl or 2 with nearly nothing on using pitch correction or a couple of metrosexual boys (with pitch correction) or some other visual gimmicks...

To counter that, I usually play 2 or 3 musicals a year and the kids that I get the privilege of playing in the pit with are simply amazing. Kids, often under 16, who choose to play Oboe or Bassoon or English Horn or French Horn or Flute or Violin, Viola, 'cello, Double Bass or Trumpet or Trombone or Tuba or Euphonium or Timpani or Saxophone or Clarinet or REAL Percussion (not simply a drum kit) - I could go on. It restores my faith

I guess at the end of the day it's about entertainment, but is it always music?

I think it could be a problem with any genre. Some music is generally appreciated by lovers of the genre.

For example, bluegrassophiles would probably appreciate the following while those who do not listen to Bluegrass might find it difficult.



Extreme Grass

I consider the problem to be my personal musical shortcomings, I simply don't understand Jazz. I seem to be hardwired to the "predictability" of Pop, Country, Blues, Bluegrass, Classic Rock genres, etc.

In a recent post (I think it was discussing Bluegrass) it was quoted: "Grab three chords then hang on for dear life!" (sic) And recently in discussing Country: "Yeah, they may only be using three chords, but look what they can do with them!" I prefer those types of aural stimuli.

I admit to getting hopelessly lost by the complexities of Jazz and I admit that I lack the musical training, the sophistication, as it were, to appreciate Jazz. Matt Finley has taught me so much without even realizing it. Thanks, Matt. It's still growing on me and may not be my first choice in music but Matt has made Jazz much more palatable. He should be "Ambassador Of Jazz!" I second that.

Yes, Catwalk is great! That's by far the best I ever heard Sadao Watanabe (alto sax) solo. Ernie Watts, the older tenor player, could completely tear this up if given the chance.

The horn (sax) parts are easy. It's the keyboard/drums/violin ensemble parts I would be concerned about.

Thanks for the link. Good listen!

Robb, admittedly, they all are quite talented musicians but "speed picking" always turns my hearing off. I consider myself a "Grasser" but that is definitely not appealing to me. I am not knocking you by any means just stating my preferences. It (speed playing) gained popularity in recent years due to groups like Nickel Creek, Union Station, etc. But the father of Bluegrass, Bill Munroe, as well as David Grisman was known to wear the strings off on occasion. I may simply be behind the trend again. Thanks for the link.

"Jazz worries way too much about itself for it to be cool." He said a mouthful there!

My point exactly Don. These guys are much too into their style and virtuosity to be enjoyable to a general audience. Jazz suffers from a similar ailment. It crosses genres.

Enter BIAB, perhaps the easiest way to take chords and melody from any genre and wrap it in a jazzy style. For example, just about ANY Beatles song...

Fair call, but I was thinking of completely new tunes (if that's really even possible) - not revamps of what are now old favourites - not that I have anything against that of course.

now I liked THAT a LOT! amazing performers practiced to the point of near-flawless timing... NOTHING about that presentation was boring!



to my ear, the notable difference between these two displays of skill is the abundance of dynamics in the first and the conspicuous lack of it in the second.

That was HOT! BTW, jazzmammal, since you are in LA area, go to Christian Assembly church in the Eagle Rock part of Pasadena - now and then you'll see some of those cats in that video sit in on the worship team. Abe Laboriel, Justo Almario, Alex Acuna - etc. They all live in that area and converged on that little church. I've been there a couple of times, and unfortunately none of them were there either time -but the band was still rocking.

They also were members of a killer fusion supergroup in the 80's/90's called Koinonia. Highly recommended listening. As far as I know, their recordings never got very popular here in the US because they were on a Christian label (I think it was Sparrow Records), but dang some hot playing and writing. The opening track to one of their albums, Gazoot, has one of the funkiest riffs.

well, Aleck.. you've managed to pose one of those rare questions that incites a full-blown discussion within the group! Congratulations! I like it when that happens!

regarding some of the comments you've made on the user showcase about modifying what you post as you learn what goes over in that environment...

bear in mind the fact that the forum participants aren't the whole audience. The purpose for that forum is to collect examples that show what PGMusic products can do. Many people who never post surely come and listen to those songs before they buy. I think that what you've posted so far is exactly consistent with that goal, especially the posts in which you showcase various real tracks or other features of the program.

In other words, don't change what you're doing. BIAB *IS* a great tool for jazz musicians, and if you are the only guy there posting jazz songs... I'm glad that niche is being filled (and quite well)

I agree whole-heartedly. (That Pat!... he does have a fine head on his shoulders!). So a very big +1 to what Pat said!!!

This came about, basically, by saying "I don't much care for that particular song" - with an ensuing explanation. Not a blanket "I don't like jazz", but a "... that one's just not for me". It seems a fairly common feeling from much of the conversation. Sometimes, what is called "jazz" goes beyond most people's enjoyment threshold. The idea that I need to be educated to some level to "understand" music before I can appreciate it.. that's a tough one to swallow.

BTW... Bob, thanks for the Catwalk post. That was terrific stuff.

It's been a fun ride so far...

Absolutely.

When I was a young man entering into the jazz performance arena, being able to *properly* play a Bebop tune was a difficult to master right of passage. If you didn't know The Bird, you couldn't get a gig.

And, with most of the older, more experienced players on the bandstands around the Pittsburgh area, it really was phrased that way, sometimes complete with expletives.

Some would see that as keeping people out.

Viewing it as to what it really is, though, a filtering system that guaranteed good results onstage, well there are others, like myself, who saw the situation as something in which we had to further immerse ourselves, practice, learn, do whatever it takes to reach our chosen goal.

And the truth of it is that you *can't* just sit in with an ensemble that is adept at playing Blues, Bebop, Modern Jazz and the Abstract Truth and fake it. You gotta KNOW. or it does not work.

I see the same things in any genre of music.

BobC, you know what its like if someone tries to sit in with a Bluegrass band and they have little to no knowledge of the genre, the standards, the methods, etc.

Can't happen.


--Mac


--Mac

Truth be told, playing Jazz is better than listening to Jazz!

I'm right there with you on all of that Mac.

I like what I like, whatever genre it gets put into

I agree with Mac, this paradigm is alive and well in pretty much every genre (but especially applicable to jazz due to the complexity of the material and the high likelihood that the average musician CAN'T hang with the rest of the seasoned performers in the band)

... which brings me back to the reason why I'm gearing up for a solo act...

You're correct Mac but that is pretty much the old fashioned way of thinking, I don't think that's the case any more because modern jazz doesn't work that way.

Lets define "modern". To me modern means stuff like Catwalk. That style sort of started in the mid 80's with David Benoit doing his Linus and Lucy thing. I really like him, he's one funky pianist.

The reason I said old fashioned is because nobody sits in any more because there's nobody to sit in with because there are no (or very few) bands covering this newer stuff in local clubs. Its just too complex and requires way too much rehearsal time. Absolutely nobody I know simply knows a lot of these newer killer tunes off the top of their heads. It just doesn't happen. Plus there isn't one modern "Bird" type of cat for everybody to emulate. Back in the day there were only a relative handful of true giants people were trying to learn from. Now there's literally hundreds. Spyro Gyra's style has nothing to do with Dave or Don Grusin or Eric Marienthal or Fourplay or Pat Matheny or The Rippingtons or name your favorite.

And yet another point, there isn't even one recognized version of all these groups best stuff. Every concert I see them in they're doing a completely different version of something. Like Herbie with Canteloupe Island. I've got 4 or 5 youtube vids of him doing that song and each one is using completely different players doing a barely recognizable arrangement of that tune and they're all killer. I know about 5 years ago the group I was in started doing the Herbie/Matheny version because it just cooks so well. I couldn't cover all Herbies licks that's for sure but I did have fun with some of them.

I guess my long winded point is times have changed. A lot.

bob

Bob,

My point with the “exclusionary” terminology was really trying to find out if kids are being brought into the jazz fold in order to keep the music alive. Out of curiosity I googled “jazz child prodigy” and found this article:

http://ronanguil.blogspot.com/2010/07/jazz-has-never-been-big-on-child.html

It starts out with this: “Jazz has never been big on child prodigies. Unlike classical music, there have been very few bona-fide child prodigies in the music, or at least ones who made a genuine impact. Classical music has had its fair share of them, and several have successfully made the transition into adult performers of note.”

Bluegrass has several of its own “child prodigies”, but I’ll limit it to 3 people roughly 10 to 30 years apart that are deserving of the term. Mark O’Connor, Chris Thile and Sierra Hull. These 3 people have and still are making an impact on the genre. (Sierra is 21, Chris is 32 and Mark is 51.)

But a musical genre can’t rely on “prodigies” to keep it alive and thriving. But I do believe it’s an indicator of whether or not people are nurturing the kids musical efforts and welcoming them into their fold. That’s why I used the term “exclusionary”.

In a lot of bluegrass jam sessions when the “big dogs” are playing and they notice a wide eyed kid watching and clutching an instrument case, one of the musicians will ask the kid “can you play that thing?” You’ll usually get some variation of “I can play Sally Goodin”. The “big dogs” then turn into the backup band and give the kid a chance to play, even if the kids not a prodigy. The kid goes home and practices like hell because he/she wants to play some more.

It keeps the music alive.

Is there anything like this happening in the jazz world?

There is a veritable plethora of young prodigies in the jazz idiom today, more than at any time previous.


ALL KIDS jazz group that was featured at the 2000 Grammy Awards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lUcTRqMDxE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQNh4MZlh98

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMsb3js4MWo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbDuN6vyItM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HUtpOQ6rgg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnKmcRSh80g

There are PLENTY more on Youtube alone, just enter, "Child Jazz Prodigy" into the Youtube Search Engine.


--Mac

"Prodigy" wasn't my point Mac. It's whether or not kids are welcomed into the fold and allowed to play a song or two even if they're NOT prodigies.

You don't have to be a child prodigy to make a mark on a musical genre.

It's easy to welcome a prodigy into the fold, but does a particular genre welcome the "wannabes" who are willing to work?

And being welcomed into the fold DOES NOT mean "watch and learn"

Don't forget that "jazz bands" are a staple of a lot of middle schools and high schools throughout the country. There are a lot of youths being exposed to a lot of the jazz standards. What this means for the genre, I am not sure, but I have really enjoyed the last few high school jazz band concerts that I have attended.

I will put another plug in for one of the best documentaries I've watched in years:

http://chopsfilm.com/author/chopsfilm/

I had it on Netflix a few months back - I don't know if it's still on Netflix or not. Well worth your two hours.

-Scott

Bob, (aka jazzmammal),

Since you posted that great clip of “Catwalk”, this one’s for you.

Here’s what happens if you take an aging bluegrass “child prodigy” and team them up with a great jazz bass and a great jazz guitar player:

Mark O'Connor, John Patitucci and Julian Lage: Live on Soundcheck

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK9Vzdjtxtg&list=PL614C5812372A83A9&index=152

Or if you're really lucky, this might happen. (Actually it did happen just a few miles down the road. I've had the privilege of playing on that stage twice, ... but it never sounded like this).

Hot Swing Trio (2004)
Mark O'Connor - Violin
Frank Vignola - Guitar
Jon Burr - Bass


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4kvzWLSDT4&list=PL614C5812372A83A9

But if you want a classical vibe from Mark O’Connor:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UfDb47H8J4&list=PL614C5812372A83A9

Or a bluegrass vibe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyCPwqRujd4&list=PL614C5812372A83A9&index=39

(Note: He’s the guy playing fiddle).

What’s equally distressing is that Mark is just as good on guitar and mandolin as he is on fiddle, …… and he’s a really nice guy.

I'd agree with that. Even in free form jazz there has to be lyricism which is why it quickly became apparent who were the real artists in that genre and who were the shuckers and jivers.

Jazz was never a natural home for strict atonality. The best modern jazz seems to be more pan-tonal in nature and is influenced in no small measure by the theories of George Russell and the example of Ornette Coleman.

What these guys did was free the jazz soloist from the tyranny of having to outline the chords, creating space for developing a line based on melodic and rhythmic motifs.
But it came at a price as not everyone was confident or talented enough to know what to put in the place of a regular harmonic structure.

The only problem was that too many cottoned onto the solutions Coltrane was finding with modes, sheets of sound, long solos that were more about texture than linear development. The rest as they say is history!

As to what the definition of modern means in jazz today means is different for each audience. In the USA there's a definite tendency to see smooth jazz and fusion as the leading genres. In Europe there's more of a 'jazz as art music' thing happening with a lot more borrowing from classical folk and the avant garde. The kind of music you see on the ECM label for example.

Alan

This is awesome Bob and absolutely I would call this fusion jazz. The best description I can think of about this is it's just plain fun. Then there's In The Cluster Blues, what can I say Mark O'Conner is one bad dude. I've copied both of these vids into my YT download folder. Great stuff.

Bob

I'm glad you liked it Bob. I've seen Mark perform live umpteen times, but the best for me was when I actually got to meet him. I had just gotten my custom Martin guitar a month or two before and Mark was doing a meet and greet at the Merle Watson Festival. I handed him my guitar and told him it was brand new and asked if he would break it in for me and show me how it was supposed to be played.

He spent the next 15 or so minutes burning the strings off of it and then smiled and handed it back to me and simply said "Nice guitar".

I did get him to autograph my case and it's sitting next to my desk as I type.

Mark knows and can play darn near every Bebop tune ever written.

Again, it is a rite of passage.


--Mac

Aha, I've got a name for what you are describing. I call it the "Sprint Scale Exercise School of Music Style" and no doubt about it, it takes incredible skill to be able to play these notes so damn fast, but it is not very Lyrical. My wife calls it JimJam and she does not care for it much. Neither do I, but I sure would love to have the chops to play that fast : )


[i][/i]

Hey Man,

Well said!

Thanks,

Got that right, Mac!

It's still available on Netflix Instant View (streaming).

Thanks for posting it.

Hi Alec,
Let me begin by stating my thoughts are in response to your beginning thread only.

I find there are so many sub genres within Jazz. https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/jazz-insights-media/id405935692
This site has a lot of insightful knowledge about the genre and its origins. This is for those who wish to get a good overview of Jazz in short, easily explained lessons and examples.

I agree with your point on the solo. It should be the interpretation of the soloist as they navigate the chordal sequence. It is the job of the soloist to look outside the box of what has already been established by the melodist.

To your last point on CD sales, we have to consider the internet has expanded the exposure to music as well as artists not normally found in a typical record store. I would not put much stock on retail sales, including downloads, to determine the pulse of interest. I believe the jazz artists never did give it much consideration either as their goals were much different than to score a top 10 hit.

However unlike the popular music genres classical, blues, & jazz have a far more loyal following. The disposable nature of pop music and its fans blow through artists faster than a tornado. Hence the reason for the larger record sales. I think of it this way. Who will be buying Justin Bieber music 10 years from now? Who can tell me the million record seller of ten years ago and what music they are making today? Yet, people are still downloading music from artists of these more obscure genres you mentioned that have been dead for decades! So, it is a matter of perspective.

Cheers!