taking Jazz too seriously

[delirium]

This was mentioned in another thread - the so-called rock elite do not take jazz seriously.

 

Seriously though looks like this is the reason jazz is disappearing from public scene more and more and it's less lucrative then other genres. Many performers I've seen including the "big" names are forgetting music is all about melody, not just group masturbating on stage.

 

 

[Dana.]

Rubbish. People have said jazz is dying for how many decades now? I recently saw Ornette Coleman make music so astounding, it couldn't have been more alive.

 

[Dave Horne]

I have a few thoughts regarding so-called jazz tunes ... to start this out. I consider myself a jazz player though rarely play the so-called jazz tunes. I have a Real Book in pristine condition - the only tunes I play from that book on jobs are the ones written by composers of the Great American Songbook (and I really hate using that phrase).

 

I just play well crafted tunes that the public has at least heard at one time or another and improvise over those changes (also being careful not to improvise too deeply as I wish to keep earning money in the venues I play).

 

There's a kid (in his 20's) in my area who is an excellent jazz piano player and I wandered into his web site where he has recordings of his group. All the tunes were (from the general public's point of view) obscure jazz tunes. He played very well, the group played very well ... and I smiled. As long as he plays those 'jazz tunes' my jobs are secure ... and I consider myself a jazz player though not perhaps a purist.

 

 

[ProfD]

Will there be a "taking [insert genre here] seriously" thread for every style?

 

Otherwise, until recently (Smooth), Jazz has never been overly commercial. Jazz is not in constant rotation on FM radio, videos, awards shows, etc.

 

Other than a few musicians, Jazz has always been less popular and lucrative than other genres.

 

In the absence of monetary reward, pioneering Jazz musicians left behind a language and legacy of music. Similar to classical composers of the past.

 

Jazz is considered American classical music. Not the most popular style but certainly entrenched historically. That is serious.

[iLaw]

Will there be a "taking [insert genre here] seriously" thread for every style?

 

Yeah, I agree. As much as I look forward to all delirium posts, I'm enjoying this one more by substituting "the Second Viennese School" or "musique concrète" where ever he uses the word "jazz."

 

Larry.

[e-keys]

I have a few thoughts regarding so-called jazz tunes ... to start this out. I consider myself a jazz player though rarely play the so-called jazz tunes. I have a Real Book in pristine condition - the only tunes I play from that book on jobs are the ones written by composers of the Great American Songbook (and I really hate using that phrase).

 

I just play well crafted tunes that the public has at least heard at one time or another and improvise over those changes (also being careful not to improvise too deeply as I wish to keep earning money in the venues I play).

 

 

Hey Dave,

 

I checked out your song list on your web site. Are those all songs committed to memory?. Also, are all your mp3s from chord charts with you improvising or from a score. Thanks

 

[suraci]

I have a few thoughts regarding so-called jazz tunes ... to start this out. I consider myself a jazz player though rarely play the so-called jazz tunes. I have a Real Book in pristine condition - the only tunes I play from that book on jobs are the ones written by composers of the Great American Songbook (and I really hate using that phrase).

 

I just play well crafted tunes that the public has at least heard at one time or another and improvise over those changes (also being careful not to improvise too deeply as I wish to keep earning money in the venues I play).

 

There's a kid (in his 20's) in my area who is an excellent jazz piano player and I wandered into his web site where he has recordings of his group. All the tunes were (from the general public's point of view) obscure jazz tunes. He played very well, the group played very well ... and I smiled. As long as he plays those 'jazz tunes' my jobs are secure ... and I consider myself a jazz player though not perhaps a purist.

 

I recall Duke saying something against the word "jazz"; what's the beef with it?

 

Then you say "so called jazz tunes" So Eye of the Hurricane, is what?

I thought jazz was unique music from America, born of Black and American Euro influences- not found in Euro nor Africa ( off course it is now ) in its inception.

[suraci]

delirium: "Many performers I've seen including the "big" names are forgetting music is all about melody, not just group masturbating on stage."

 

I guess I agree about the melody section of your comment- the latter part I thought was more akin to the Doors?

[SK]

I don't care for the word "jazz" either, or the anachronism it implies. But for the purpose of the thread:

 

Besides history, jazz gives you a means of expression that's the deepest harmonically and rhythmically in improvisational music. That just gives you more ways to express yourself; more colors and shades to the palette.

 

I stopped playing 'rock only' and started trying to be a jazz player when I finally realized that jazz would allow me to use my full technique as a pianist (I'd been living on 3-4 note chords in bands for too long) and that it let me play anything I hear without limitations. That's something not possible in most improvisational styles.

 

If you want to still rock out, play blues licks, country licks, latin music or anything else, you can do it all under the freedom jazz provides. It's an American melting pot of influences from Europe, South America, and Africa. Jazz is like the Wikipedia of music, where contributors have made additions and evolved it along the way.

 

But playing jazz doesn't mean you have to be tied to the past, or to a particular style. After grasping the language, you're free to expand it in your own way in the present. It's what you make it. Look at Esbjorn Svensson, who sadly just left us.

 

When someone asks me what music I play, I don't know how to answer, so I usually say jazz "by default." They need that term as a point of reference, but I'm just an improvisor, which jazz gave me the nerve to try.

[Dave Horne]

I have a few thoughts regarding so-called jazz tunes ... to start this out. I consider myself a jazz player though rarely play the so-called jazz tunes. I have a Real Book in pristine condition - the only tunes I play from that book on jobs are the ones written by composers of the Great American Songbook (and I really hate using that phrase).

 

I just play well crafted tunes that the public has at least heard at one time or another and improvise over those changes (also being careful not to improvise too deeply as I wish to keep earning money in the venues I play).

 

 

Hey Dave,

 

I checked out your song list on your web site. Are those all songs committed to memory?. Also, are all your mp3s from chord charts with you improvising or from a score. Thanks

 

The tunes are well embedded in my memory ... most of them are. I have those tunes written out as lead sheets but really don't remember if I used those lead sheets or not when I made those mp3's. I do not write out 'runs', though from playing for so many years you do tend to use information you've used in the past.

 

Even though I read pretty well I could find it daunting to read exactly what I've played.

[delirium]

my problem with modern jazz is that it's boring most of the time, I'm getting impression jazz musicians cannot compose good song

so they jerk off with pseudo "improvisation", harmony orgasm etc.

Few on the scene that can actually compose a hit like Dave Brubeck are getting "accusation" from some people that it's not real jazz. Nothing can be farther from truth, jazz can and should provide hits same way like other genres. Then it will get more attention.

 

 

[Dave Horne]

my problem with modern jazz is that it's boring most of the time, I'm getting impression jazz musicians cannot compose good song

so they jerk off with pseudo "improvisation", harmony orgasm etc.

Few on the scene that can actually compose a hit like Dave Brubeck are getting "accusation" from some people that it's not real jazz. Nothing can be farther from truth, jazz can and should provide hits same way like other genres. Then it will get more attention.

 

 

The hit in question is Take Five, I assume? Well, it wasn't composed by Dave Brubeck.

 

As far as his playing goes, it doesn't have the sound to my ears that it is improvised. It sounds as though it is extremely worked up. I wouldn't call DB a swingin' pianist though I'm probably in the minority.

 

He's a great composer and has done a lot for jazz piano but his playing leaves me cold.

[delirium]

The hit in question is Take Five, I assume? Well, it wasn't composed by Dave Brubeck.

 

I know, Paul Desmond but in DB quartet. That not the point though,

just a example, you can take other name like Pat Matheny.

Point is you can write hits in jazz yet so few do.

[timwat]

Agree w/ Dave Horne's assessment of Brubeck as a pianist.

 

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Bill Evans never ceases to touch and amaze me, not sure who swings harder than Wynton Kelly, and as far as using "jazz", "improvisation" and "melody" in the same sentence, first jazz pianist I think of is Keith Jarrett, despite his penchant for being a bit of a curmudgeon in public.

 

YMMV.

 

 

[SK]

jazz can and should provide hits same way like other genres. Then it will get more attention.

That's a well considered thought, and I agree that much, but not all, of today's jazz is boring. A 'hit' could make a difference, although not easy to happen. That's because any instrumental music more introspective or deeper than 'surface' gets very little media exposure. Not to even mention the commercial listener's dependence on always hearing a vocalist.

 

So jazz will continue to assimilate with other styles.

 

The good news: The jazz era, as it was known, is gone, but the lessons from the music are still here. And there will always be some segment of the public that eventually gets tired of listening to the same stuff everyone else does.

 

The only thing that can make a difference now is the individual, and one's creative personal playing and writing. If a hit comes out of that, all the better.

 

 

[delirium]

we need more pieces like this:

 

Jazz Fussion

 

or this:

 

more fusion

[David Loving]

I thought you are supposed to take jazz seriously. I never understood why, but I thought you were.

[suraci]

As far as ease of hits

Try writing a hit, in ANY genre

[marino]

I have only one thing to say:

 

Musicians and listeners who allow themselves to look beyond their concept of what music "is", or should be, and to venture into understanding why other genres sound different, what's their evolution, etc., have everything to gain from the process. Those who don't, have everything to lose.

I know it worked for me.

 

 

 

 

[jook]

Will there be a "taking [insert genre here] seriously" thread for every style?

 

I was very close to starting a thread for "taking Dave Horne seriously" ... but I was afraid it'd be taken the wrong way

 

I can respect that Dave's opinions are different from my own, and I wouldn't want to be purely making fun, but to me, the whole question of "taking Rock seriously" or even "taking Jazz seriously" is a topic that goes nowhere, because it's based on presumptions of how you define what "seriously" is and how "accreditation" is something of value (as in the Rock thread), or that a secure job, or the ability to gather a steady income is a priority (as mentioned in this thread) -- and yes, of course money is imporant, but if that was your real/primary concern, you wouldn't be playing piano, you'd be a lawyer.

 

I believe in what marino said above. Music exists before theory, and before genres. To let yourself be locked down to these ideas before everything else would be a mistake. To think that music can't be true or of value unless it can be broken down into theory, or to put priority in the theory and names used to describe music over our independent ability to appreciate music without preconceptions, would be a waste.

[Dave Horne]

delirium, if you're going to start a thread regarding jazz being taken seriously, you didn't think it through well enough I'm afraid.

 

I have no intention of listing the colleges where they have jazz performance\theory\composition\arranging courses, but I know they exist. It would appear that some high level schools (and more than a few) take jazz very seriously.

 

My thread regarding rock - I was not aware of any college offering the equivalent of what is already being offered in the jazz area.

[delirium]

I see many didn't understand real idea of this thread. It is similar to Dave Horns thread about the taking Rock seriously only by the title (for fun), and in fact is completely different. Initially I wanted to name it more appropriately "taking jazz too seriously". My point again is most of jazz player are taking jazz too seriously plus they're unable to write catchy song so they escape to pointless, pseudo "improvisations", and this is the problem with modern jazz. As long as this is the case media and public will not take jazz seriously. Dave, that has nothing to do with schools or classes available either for jazz or rock. Rock and other genres are doing quite well without it...

[keysplease]

Even though I read pretty well I could find it daunting to read exactly what I've played.

 

[suraci]

Will there be a "taking [insert genre here] seriously" thread for every style?

I believe in what marino said above. Music exists before theory, and before genres. To let yourself be locked down to these ideas before everything else would be a mistake. To think that music can't be true or of value unless it can be broken down into theory, or to put priority in the theory and names used to describe music over our independent ability to appreciate music without preconceptions, would be a waste.

 

Which "ideas"? re: "these ideas".

Yes, music exists apart from theory.

Same with the world- it exists apart from man's theories.

If you are talking my things I said, i agree, music is first, never theory.

What I am talking about is continuing to be misunderstood.

ABSORPTION of a style- a deep grasp of what that style is, in the sense, that "you" can play or write in that style, regardless of theory, which is merely like training wheels- never meant to be a halter to creativity.

The ppl I respect in music have displayed tremendous creativity- not theory.

 

My whole life, I have been alienated by the musicians around me consistently knocking the early masters position on the curtailing of parallel fifths and octaves.

Its a lengthy topic that others here may know more about...but

the idea of disciplining yourself to try writing that way, does not yield a limitation, but a liberation. In the sense that one ( at least I ) hears fifths and octaves in a new way. He finds a secret to GET A CERTAIN EFFECT, THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT IT. It's simple- yet ppl use all these pejoratives about old theory- they miss the point entirely.

Of course I play parallel fifths and octaves, but I am aware of the effect of using contrary motion- independence of the voices.

 

That was just a concrete example, which there have been too few of

[bloodyMary]

Will there be a "taking [insert genre here] seriously" thread for every style?

 

Otherwise, until recently (Smooth), Jazz has never been overly commercial. Jazz is not in constant rotation on FM radio, videos, awards shows, etc.

 

Other than a few musicians, Jazz has always been less popular and lucrative than other genres.

 

In the absence of monetary reward, pioneering Jazz musicians left behind a language and legacy of music. Similar to classical composers of the past.

 

Jazz is considered American classical music. Not the most popular style but certainly entrenched historically. That is serious.

 

 

not true. It was the most popular music before rock'n'roll, wasn't it?

 

It's always lke that - first jazz was popular, then rock'n'roll took it's place. Then disco, heavy metal, grunge, pop (backstreet boys type), and now rap.

 

Jazz had it's time to shine. Now it's niche product, still way more popular than some other styles. There are jazz radio shows and even stations, people come to see live jazz music, etc.

[Mr. Nightime]

DISCLAIMER: I love the music of Herbie Hancock, and I think he is one of the greats of modern music.

 

....so they escape to pointless, pseudo "improvisations", and this is the problem with modern jazz....

 

An example of this is "Both Sides Now" from Herbie's "River - the Joni Letters". I listened to this and wondered where the melody even was. The chords were changed to the point of being unrecognizable, and there was no recognizable melody. Was it a masterful performance, yes. But to my ears it was a "pointless, pseudo 'improvization'".

 

I think there's a problem with any form of music taking itself too seriously. That's a very closed minded way of thinking, and that's where the musical snobs come from. I was taught by my dad to give everything new a chance. Never judge strictly by it's "genre", but by it's own merits. If I don't like it, fine. But I might find something that moves me to different directions, or can be incorporated into my current direction that I would otherwise have never known about.

 

[Dave Horne]

Even though I read pretty well I could find it daunting to read exactly what I've played.

 

 

Derek, what's your point?

[lerber3]

I don't know where this fits on the scale of 'seriousness', but when I play jazz, it's for me first... then the musicians I'm playing with... then everybody else. Jazz, more than any other style of music, provides a framework for playing and exploring... jazz allows us musicians to play together with musicians we've never met before to make music we've never heard before.

 

As for the listener? I play what I like, and hope that if I like what I hear, others will too. When I listen to excellent jazz, I appreciate it as a player... I don't mind that the music often lacks the catchy 'hook', clever lyrics, and repetitive structure of a pop tune.Good jazz is an experience full of creative and unexpected moments. I hear and appreciating somebody else 'playing'.

 

In the purest sense, jazz is fun. It is play, not work... jazz doesn't need business people and executives who fabricate an image, hire writers and studio musicians, and launch a carefully planned business plan to create a 'product' (actually, based on some posts in this thread, that's probably what jazz needs to become 'serious').

 

I am glad there are 'serious' accredited jazz schools and courses I can take to learn how to compose and play better. I'm glad that jazz is deep, with layer upon layer of theory and technique that, if mastered, let me have more fun playing.

 

IMHO, jazz is not serious... certainly not as serious as rock or country.

 

... on re-reading my post, I guess I'll agree with whoever asked what the hell 'serious' means. Fun thread, thanks.

[ProfD]

Will there be a "taking [insert genre here] seriously" thread for every style?

 

Otherwise, until recently (Smooth), Jazz has never been overly commercial. Jazz is not in constant rotation on FM radio, videos, awards shows, etc.

 

Other than a few musicians, Jazz has always been less popular and lucrative than other genres.

 

In the absence of monetary reward, pioneering Jazz musicians left behind a language and legacy of music. Similar to classical composers of the past.

 

Jazz is considered American classical music. Not the most popular style but certainly entrenched historically. That is serious.

 

 

not true. It was the most popular music before rock'n'roll, wasn't it?

 

It's always lke that - first jazz was popular, then rock'n'roll took it's place. Then disco, heavy metal, grunge, pop (backstreet boys type), and now rap.

 

Jazz had it's time to shine. Now it's niche product, still way more popular than some other styles. There are jazz radio shows and even stations, people come to see live jazz music, etc.

There was a point in time when Jazz was more widely accepted but it has never been popular to the extent of Rock & Roll or Hip-Hop today.

 

Sure, Jazz still has a radio presence and is performed throughout the world. However, it does not receive the same constant mainstream exposure similar to other genres. Smooth Jazz is the most popular form of it.

 

Traditional Jazz is mainly found on listener supported radio, schools, small to medium sized venues and footnote on major Jazz festivals.

 

Still, Jazz artists are working. At a recent festival in this area, Joe Sample and Randy Crawford were on the bill. Brian Culbertson was the headliner.

 

To Delirium's point, Jazz artists probably attempt to compose "hit" records but IMO, they are more content with making music to facilitate live performances which generate a major source of revenue beyond Jazz record sales.

 

Besides, it is harder to expose the latest "Take Five", "Mercy, Mercy, Mercy", "Wade in the Water" or "Birdland" without mainstream media i.e. constant airplay on radio, video, commercials, football games, etc.

[delirium]

IMHO, jazz is not serious... certainly not as serious as rock or country.

 

sure it is not, as any other music is not. Well maybe except funeral march style , but jazzers are taking it too seriously and some even (not to point fingers) think there are better then e.g. rock players just because they use less notes in a chords...

 

We have of course many aspects of seriousness - rock, pop is for sure more serious about business involved but only because they know they can sell it.

 

BTW, how many of you hum "Giant Steps" when taking shower in the morning and how many hum "Raindrops Keep Falling on My head" kinda songs?