Jump to content
Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

The Arrested Development of the Jazz Standard


Adan

Recommended Posts

With deepest apologies to JPScoey, I thought I'd start another jazz thread with a prediction and then some speculation as to the reason for it. The prediction is that in the year 2040 the list of songs considered jazz standards will be mostly (let's say 95%, to put a number on it) the same as it is now. The remarkable thing about this, of course, is that in 1940 the list was very different than it is now, in the sense that many songs that were to become standards had not yet been written. Creation of new jazz standards has virtually ceased in spite of the fact that academic institutions are churning out very good jazz musicians at a rate never before seen.

 

Now, first of all, you are free to disagree with the prediction. I don't claim to have a better insight into the future than anyone else. However, I have been listening to jazz and playing jazz for over 30 years, and it seems to me that, despite the fact that there have been plenty of jazz composers working that time, the list of standards has expanded only slightly.

 

I also note at the outset that I am not taking a position on whether this is a good or bad thing, though that certainly is up for discussion. I have an opinion about that, but primarily I'm interested in thinking about the reasons for it.

 

Now for my own speculation.

 

The first is that it is due to global warming. Personally, I don't really believe it is. But California law requires that I at least consider this as a possibility and list it.

 

The second is that it has something to do with the nature of how jazz composer's work has changed, and that this is at least a contributing factor. I'll illustrate this with a story from my life. I used to work with a guy who loves Winton Marsalis, and almost everyday he would come to me with another example of how Marsalis is a greater composer than Duke Ellington. This got annoying very quickly, but now and then I would oblige him and listen to a Marsalis piece that he brought me. Yes, it was hard to argue that Marsalis isn't more impressive in many ways. And yet nothing I listened had the elegant simplicity of a jazz standard. To me it seemed like, in order to prove himself, he had to leave simplicity behind. (And I apologize to the Marsalis fans. The situation I describe was probably skewed because my co-worker was intent on showing me how impressive Marsalis could be).

 

The third speculation is that it has less to do with how musicians and their work has changed, and more to do with how the world has changed. A tune doesn't become a jazz standard unless it lives in the minds of audiences. Which is another way of saying that jazz musicians, to the extent they can make a living at all, cannot make it playing only for other jazz musicians. The audience's ability to recognize a song and hold the structure of that song in their head while the blowing continues is a critical element to the audience's enjoyment of jazz. With rare exceptions, there are not new songs being written that a) find a way into the public consciousness and b) are conducive to treatment as jazz standards.

 

There's more I intended to say, but brevity is the soul of shortness. Now I'd like to know what the experts think.

 

Gigging: Crumar Mojo 61, Hammond SKPro

Home: Vintage Vibe 64

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 191
  • Created
  • Last Reply

There used to be a jazz scene. Its dwindled to all but nothing. Too much supply, not enough demand. I'm going to play a Saturday afternoon jazz gig right now, we will see how many people are in the bar, the majority will be musicians. Jazz standards of the past were popular music, particularly earlier stuff. Then Bop was an extension of that, writing new melodies over old chord sequences. Then fusion...well...at that point you weren't dealing with ultra popular music any more, it was art music, so inherently more complex and less palatable.

 

I would guess that the less "catchy" tunes became, the less likely they were going to be enjoyed by a wide array of both musicians and audiences, so these songs haven't become standards. At least I think something like that.

We are all slave's to our brain chemistry!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much of the litany of jazz standards were born out of theater and crafted in a time where melody and harmony had a very lyrical quality to them. They were penned by gifted composers and lyricists, not jazz musicians (although some were, and those numbers grew over time).

 

More importantly, they were also part of the popular music of the day. This, beyond all else (IMHO) helped propel them to such favor among musicians and listeners alike (aside from being beautifully crafted compositions).

 

If you listen to musical theater TODAY, it is as much about production as it is music (like most of the entertainment business) and while there are nuggets of amazing writing, it pales to a bygone era.

 

We have greater numbers of amazing technical jazz musicians than ever before, but lots of the music created has been soulless (chops without soul = chops, not music). The jazz standards that didn't come out of theater and were written by jazz musicians had a harmonic richness to them, and yet a simplicity at the same time. Look at Nardis as a great example of this. There are just fewer compositions that are simply as good! Why?

 

Anyway, I'm sure these reasons contribute to the current and likely future state of the "jazz standard", but I'm sure there are many more reasons just as valid.

 

I think there will be SOME additions to the great jazz standard playlist in the future, but it will represent a much smaller part of the whole.

 

Lastly, yes . . . . global warming is also an underlying cause of this malady, along with artificial sweeteners, red dye #40, increased solar flair activity and most notably . . . reality TV and the Kardashians.

 

Yamaha C7 Grand, My Hammonds: '57 B3, '54 C2, '42 BC, '40 D, '05 XK3 Pro System, Kawai MP9000, Fender Rhodes Mk I 73, Yamaha CP33, Motif ES6, Nord Electro 2, Minimoog Voyager & Model D, Korg MS10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I generally put jazz standards into one of two categories, those that come out of popular music or musical theater, and those that were written by jazz musicians. Green Dolphin Street v. Nardis. The proliferation of technically gifted jazz musicians would relate (if at all) only to the second category. I don't think these distinctions change the overall contour of the discussion much, but they are worth keeping in mind for the sake of clarity.

Gigging: Crumar Mojo 61, Hammond SKPro

Home: Vintage Vibe 64

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What he said !

 

He ( Meisenhower or WISEnhower ha ha couldn't resist! ) asks "why"

 

I say poor values. People hankered for "change", and there are always people around to make a buck on the foolish wishes of the public. SOME change, sure, why not, but too much, too fast, not such a good idea.

So change came in the 60's. Problem is, change was not all good. Some was very bad. And our music is a reflection of that.

I have nearly sacred recollections of my old school teacher alerting me to the following:

Parallel fifths

hidden fifths

octaves ditto

monotony ( that is a BIG ONE today, such mono tone ee ) John Coltrane ushered in a drone thing that may have been borrowed from India. In ELvin Trane McCoy and Jimmy's hands, that drone was cool. But now it is watered down unadulterated MONOTONY in other words a lack of creativity.. period. As my parent used to say.

tritone was the infamously misunderstood devil in musica

Perfect intervals

Climax of a melodic idea

theme and variation

form and fantasy or freedom within the form

 

DO you have any idea what happens to music when you DROP all of the above ( and much more that I have not bothered to mention)

well you get todays mediocrity

 

Melody is the simplest term I can use. But it is the most difficult to write a great melody. Put a gun to my head, and I would say you might as well pull the trigger, if you expect me to write a great melody, it is that difficult to write

eg Prelude to a Kiss are you with me?

Lush Life

even melodies like Peg of My Heart TRY IT just TRY iT and fall on your asses.

That is why - we got too smart, too intelectual, too computer based, and even to cocky to leave God out of the discussion.

I am reading a book by psychiatrist M Scott Peck

he says we know nothing. we are deluded if we think that we, or science knows sh**. cause compared to what is out there we are blithering fools.

 

So it was arrogant of us to turn our backs on the old school ideas that were handed down from before Bach's time- Palestrina was a bad dude too.

And remember working WITHIN restrictions whether froma Christian church or just musical smarts, creates a situation where great music can flow.

Remove all restrictions, and you to not get good or great music.

 

You don't have ideas, ideas have you

We see the world, not as it is, but as we are. "One mans food is another mans poison". I defend your right to speak hate. Tolerance to a point, not agreement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, aside from global warming and the Kardashians, newer music popular among jazz players are getting too complex so they don't approach the simplicity of the standards. The idea of the standards too was that the changes themselves were the common platform and then it's up to you to blow. So you bring a bunch of players together and call the tune and off you go. As long as someone plays the head, I just sight read the changes and it works out, even if I don't know the tune or don't know it well.

 

But if the tune requires weeks of woodshedding to even get it to an acceptable level, then it misses the point of the standards. In a way, practically all the common progressions are already covered be existing standards so why even bother with the changes. Maybe make alternate melodies instead.

Hamburg Steinway O, Crumar Mojo, Nord Electro 4 HP 73, EV ZXA1

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

missRichardTee and Jazzwee, welcome to the thread. Now behave yourselves!

 

A lot of good points have been made about how songwriting has changed. But I still think it has as much or more to do with how the world and music media have changed. Let's suppose someone could write another Nardis. In all likelihood, it happens now and then. Maybe it even gets onto an album by a well-known jazzer. What are the chances of it becoming a standard? What are the chances that enough people will listen to it that, someday, maybe 10 years from now, when it is played at a garden variety jazz gig in some restaraunt in Buffalo, NY, most of the people in the audience will say, "hey, I know that tune."

Gigging: Crumar Mojo 61, Hammond SKPro

Home: Vintage Vibe 64

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not a writer, and what follows is ample proof! But I know a thing or two about this topic, however poorly I write it, so give this a try!

 

Merging the terms "jazz" and "standards" , is one problem.

I think MELODY was much more cultivated in the previous century.

Jazz means, among other things, improvisation .

I think the thinking has shifted over decades away from melody and over to improv- meaning "standards" is "melody" and the term "jazz" is "improv".

Duke kicks Wynton's melodically speaking and in most other ways.

Melody and melodic improv is the best kept secret of this day.

As poorly ( syrupy ) as I regard Kenny G, he is smart enough to emphasize melody and melodic improv.

The "world" that standards were created for is long gone. Big Bands played what? MELODIC ideas, not just THE primary melody, but all those others parts in the arrangement were, guess what, MELODIC.

If there is one thing I keep saying to musicians who I hope ( yet at the same time doubt ) might listen it is this

PLay the melody very well. Get very familiar with it.

It is not nearly as simple or easy as my words make it sound. Get INTO melodic ness.

The emphasis now is in other directions.

Melody used to relate to "singable". Back in the more sane days of the past, teachers would use currently foreign terms like dissonance, consonance, cross relations, etc.

These things are inherited from times well prior to the 1940's.

Has music truly progressed beyond Charlie Parker? I doubt it.

 

We live in a very different world now.

people challenged things ( seemingly everything ) that seemed quite sensible in the 1940's.

melody, counterpoint, dissonance , parallel isms etc,

we used to hear terms like "musical" too.

But movements outside of music proper, had a deleterious effect on music.

Everything that involved DISCRIMINATION- MAKING FINE DISTINCTIONS between melodic dissonance etc ( yes, discrimination was once a highly valued thing... now in the public or political sector it is only viewed in the pejorative sense. A gross distortion of reality. And melody is reality; which is why you say that Ellington is essentially more listenable, more singable, more MELODIC than others including Mr Marsalis. And IMPROV is not melodic, except in the hands of the rarest genius. Since it is assumed we are not genius doesn't it make sense to pursue the most precious thing- melody? You don't have to play like John Tesh or Kenny G, but melody is King my friends.

You don't have ideas, ideas have you

We see the world, not as it is, but as we are. "One mans food is another mans poison". I defend your right to speak hate. Tolerance to a point, not agreement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason I disagree with your prediction is because I think that by the year 2040, there will be so few people left who care about the concept of the "jazz standard" that it will become an essentially meaningless term, or at least a highly anachronistic one. The list of jazz standards will be about as relevant as the list of industry specs for 8-track tapes.

 

As for why the list of standards today is so unchanged from what it was decades ago, here's another factor: the idea of the "jazz standard" came from an era when jazz, theater music, and the pop music of the day were all a lot more closely intertwined than they are now. Musical theater was popular (among more than just theater geeks), and jazz was popular (among more than just jazz geeks), and the crooners on the radio reflected the popularity of both of those. So there were more tunes in the public consciousness that a jazz musician could "do something" with. Today it's a lot harder to imagine nearly as much common ground among (for example) Keith Jarrett, Kesha, and the Wicked soundtrack.

 

I remember when Herbie's album The New Standard came out in the mid-90s, showcasing jazz renditions of recent(ish) pop tunes. My reaction was that if this is the best we've got, then the jazz standard as a continuing, vital entity is in trouble. 15 years or so later, my opinion is unchanged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

missRichardTee and Jazzwee, welcome to the thread. Now behave yourselves!

 

A lot of good points have been made about how songwriting has changed. But I still think it has as much or more to do with how the world and music media have changed. Let's suppose someone could write another Nardis. In all likelihood, it happens now and then. Maybe it even gets onto an album by a well-known jazzer. What are the chances of it becoming a standard? What are the chances that enough people will listen to it that, someday, maybe 10 years from now, when it is played at a garden variety jazz gig in some restaraunt in Buffalo, NY, most of the people in the audience will say, "hey, I know that tune."

 

This is a great but confusing topic. Greatness and confusion are not incompatible! And I AM behaving ha ha

 

I write a tune on my album ( hypothetically speaking ) what are the chances? Slim. What is your point? Not meaning to be confrontational, just literally, what is your point?

I think you touched on a sore topic with me- the unparalleled and unACKNOWLEDGED power of media to influence the minds of the public. SO . yes, the media record companies, radio stations, TV have tremendous power to dictate to you what will be heard and the converse, what is NOT heard.

 

You don't have ideas, ideas have you

We see the world, not as it is, but as we are. "One mans food is another mans poison". I defend your right to speak hate. Tolerance to a point, not agreement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason I disagree with your prediction is because I think that by the year 2040, there will be so few people left who care about the concept of the "jazz standard" that it will become an essentially meaningless term, or at least a highly anachronistic one. The list of jazz standards will be about as relevant as the list of industry specs for 8-track tapes.

 

As for why the list of standards today is so unchanged from what it was decades ago, here's another factor: the idea of the "jazz standard" came from an era when jazz, theater music, and the pop music of the day were all a lot more closely intertwined than they are now. Musical theater was popular (among more than just theater geeks), and jazz was popular (among more than just jazz geeks), and the crooners on the radio reflected the popularity of both of those. So there were more tunes in the public consciousness that a jazz musician could "do something" with. Today it's a lot harder to imagine nearly as much common ground among (for example) Keith Jarrett, Kesha, and the Wicked soundtrack.

 

Brilliant observer of society, thank you for that. It is nice to have someone help you express what you feel but have trouble putting into words.

The only point that I hope you are exaggerating is the absence of any standards.

I am hoping that the notion that great things eventually, like cream, rise to the top, and WILL also preside over the public consciousness.

Nice that "you" used the term consciousness. It brings to mind a paraphrased quote from Plato where he warns the musicians or singers of the day that their music will affect ( or is it effect I can't make that distinction !) the CONSCIOUSNESS of the nation' I believe that the trash we hear is harming our nation and the world in general.

You don't have ideas, ideas have you

We see the world, not as it is, but as we are. "One mans food is another mans poison". I defend your right to speak hate. Tolerance to a point, not agreement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we stick to the narrow bounds that a "standard" has to be a swing tune in the style of the '40's then there may NEVER be another such standard.

 

But standards start from good melodies. So here's a specificexample. The tune below is of recent vintage.

 

It's a simple melody and last year I saw it played by different artists (Kurt Elling put Lyrics to it and Kenny Barron was on Piano). It was a great new version btw and the lyrics added to the appeal. That's like the start of a process here when others start doing covers.

 

BUT THIS IS NOT SWING. We have to accept that music that appeals to musicians in 2040 may be DIFFERENT.

 

[video:youtube]

Hamburg Steinway O, Crumar Mojo, Nord Electro 4 HP 73, EV ZXA1

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I generally agree with what's been said above. I do have hope, though, because I really dig what Trio of OZ is doing with what some might consider current "standards."

 

[video:youtube]

"I'm so crazy, I don't know this is impossible! Hoo hoo!" - Daffy Duck

 

"The good news is that once you start piano you never have to worry about getting laid again. More time to practice!" - MOI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUT THIS IS NOT SWING. We have to accept that music that appeals to musicians in 2040 may be DIFFERENT.

 

I very much agree. My perspective is that the thing that makes a standard a standard is not style, melody or even popularity, but rather consensus; large numbers of performing musicians agree that for whatever reasons, a given tune is worth knowing and playing on a long-term basis. And I see a lot less of that happening, in music and in life, as time moves forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

missRT pretty much nails it.

 

The death of the singable melody was the death of new jazz standards.

 

Nowadays, jazz rarely has lyrics, never mind a melody with which to sing them. It's become all about the performance and the technical prowess, a band full of musician's musicians playing for musicians and wannabe highbrows - kinda like prog metal... :freak:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting (to me) question that I never thought to consider before: how long did it take for the tunes we now know as standards to become standards? I mean, how many years passed between the time "All The Things You Are" was first performed, and the time every jazz musician on the planet started playing it? And if there were popular tunes from today that were going to get that same treatment, how long do you think it would take?

 

I think this was another unique factor from the era when standards emerged, and a reason this tends not to happen any more: music then was valued on more of a long-term basis, whereas pop tunes today are regarded as only slightly less fleeting and disposable than paper towels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Words people words

words morph over the passage of time.

the word "jazz" was criticized by none other than Duke Ellington (correct me if! ) I think he said there was GOOD music and BAD music- Ooooo a value JUDGEMENT-ooooo how shocking. BUT a composer of melodies, aka a composer HAS to make constant JUDGEMENTS for his melody, And although it IS personal and subjective IT ALSO points to something, a reality that is beyond the purely personal.

the word "standard" I am not certain, but I think the meaning has to do with something of such intrinsic VALUE that it endures the passage of time

in that sense Bach Ravel Beethoven Chopin, wrote timeless music- aka Standards.

Also "standard" refers to SETTING A HIGHER standard.

which refers back to intrinsic value

 

Now all of the above is tickling a touchy topic. It is this one. The first time I heard it in the 60's I recoiled, disliking it, intuitively- little did I know what garbage was to follow.

These words " Who are you to say ?"

WHO sets the standards of what is intrinsically of greater musical value?

According those who ask " Who are you to say ?, NO ONE is fit to answer that question.

According to my music teachers, greatest musicians and teachers are fit.

 

There has always been common taste in life, in music, in fashion.

Then there are those in an inner circle I suppose.

Do with these arguments what you will, but to ask, "Who are you to say to judge what is better " is a dangerous question that experience suggests was better left unasked.

 

All men are created equal, only in a few senses that I will not touch upon.

But in my experience all men are certainly not even remotely equal in abilty, or understanding.

 

So who am I to say what is good music and what is less than? An experienced open, talented musician who has focussed on the subject of music my whole life. And I have consulted with other musicians to help my objectivity.

Nothing I can say here will make a dent in the brains or opinons of the "Who are you to judge?" crowd. I want little to do with them.

You don't have ideas, ideas have you

We see the world, not as it is, but as we are. "One mans food is another mans poison". I defend your right to speak hate. Tolerance to a point, not agreement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting (to me) question that I never thought to consider before: how long did it take for the tunes we now know as standards to become standards? I mean, how many years passed between the time "All The Things You Are" was first performed, and the time every jazz musician on the planet started playing it? And if there were popular tunes from today that were going to get that same treatment, how long do you think it would take?

 

I think this was another unique factor from the era when standards emerged, and a reason this tends not to happen any more: music then was valued on more of a long-term basis, whereas pop tunes today are regarded as only slightly less fleeting and disposable than paper towels.

 

I don't think ( I could be wrong because I and few here, were THERE when Kern wrote All The Things u r - but did he call it a STANDARD THEN??

 

First there is just plain old music. Later on, humanity ADDS their opinions, right wrong or somewhere in between.

Is Sweet and Lovely a standard, I dunno. It sure is a great tune to play on.

 

Another mere observation.

Over the decades I have noticed younger musicians who did not have a library of music memorized often had REAL BOOK on the band stand

It always struck me as odd, since I never considered the freaking real book to be esp representative of so called standards.

Practices pf young musicians kind of partially created Standards

Also I notice that Jobim tunes are part of the practice of young musicians ( older too )

What dooe Jobim and Kern have in common- their music is played very much by musicians today- AND more primarily, their music is SINGABLE is MUSICAL, is MELODIOUS, is therefore PLAYED a lot, is ENDURING, is therefore a STANDARD hello

You don't have ideas, ideas have you

We see the world, not as it is, but as we are. "One mans food is another mans poison". I defend your right to speak hate. Tolerance to a point, not agreement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when Herbie's album The New Standard came out in the mid-90s, showcasing jazz renditions of recent(ish) pop tunes. My reaction was that if this is the best we've got, then the jazz standard as a continuing, vital entity is in trouble. 15 years or so later, my opinion is unchanged.

 

I really like that version of "Norwegian Wood" on there. Nice changes and I like the slow waltz thing. He had Dave Holland doubling the melody with a bass clarinet maybe?...nice effect. The rest of the record I can't say I cared for that much.

 

I used to play NW fairly regularly trio and quartet-these days not so much. Seems today I'll opt for something like "Child is born", "Emily", that Frank Rosolino tune, "Blue Daniel" or even something like "Jitterbug Waltz". For me I find more melodic and harmonic content to work off of.

https://soundcloud.com/dave-ferris

https://www.youtube.com/@daveferris2709

 

2005 NY Steinway D, Yamaha AvantGrand N3X, CP88, P515

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Change happens. Deal with it.

 

You could extend this "argument" to all forms of music. When was the last great cantata or concerto or symphony written? When was the last great country song written? When was the last great blues song written?

 

If you define yourself and what you can do by the past, you'll never do anything beyond what's already been done. Of course novelty for novelty's sake is as dumb as blind nostalgia, but you can't stop change. Might as well get on the bus because it's leaving with or without you. Or you can sit and grumble about how things were better in your day.

 

Music, like language, is constantly evolving and changing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I thought of the Collosus himself Sonny Rollins did NOT play harmonically involved music, unlike Coltrane.

Imagine playing I'm an Old Cowhand?? Or Mack the Knife?

Sonny is a giant because his practice seems to me to emphasize melodicness over harmony.

I will make a dangerous statement here ( because I make get ignored or dissed !! )

Harmony is constantly brought up, and melody is always receiving second billing if that.

Yet melody is superior.

Melody and harmony are very interlaced, but melody is far superior. :deadhorse: I was actually looking for the smiley with the imp hiding behind a wall !!! lol

You don't have ideas, ideas have you

We see the world, not as it is, but as we are. "One mans food is another mans poison". I defend your right to speak hate. Tolerance to a point, not agreement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

B3-er If you define yourself and what you can do by the past, you'll never do anything beyond what's already been done.

 

Good point, but it does not address discrimination at all.

edit nor does it mention something that needs mentioning

the connection between past and present

There is a breaking from past , in particular melodic ness ( I know I am beating a dead horse ) - melodies are not as good today.

 

the future music ought to learn from the past and add to it

making a "clean" break from it is not a good idea.

 

"My freedom will be so much the greater and more meaningful the more narrowly I limit my field of action and the more I surround myself with obstacles. Whatever diminishes constraint diminishes strength. The more constraints one imposes, the more one frees one's self of the chains that shackle the spirit. "

Guess who said that! He also said something I can't find about a musician or composer learning the traditions before engaging newer music- badly paraphrased.

We should KEEP the good ideas of the past, when we are revolutionizing music!

 

You don't have ideas, ideas have you

We see the world, not as it is, but as we are. "One mans food is another mans poison". I defend your right to speak hate. Tolerance to a point, not agreement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, quiz time

Yellow Submarine

or Aja by Steely Dan

choose !!

 

I am anything but a composer, but I have read about it, and I have great respect for composers.

My study of music taught me that melody can be separated from harmony

Much of music I hear today is heavily flavored with poweful harmonic spices.

But a gret melody can stand on its own without harmonic spices.

"Food" for thought

You don't have ideas, ideas have you

We see the world, not as it is, but as we are. "One mans food is another mans poison". I defend your right to speak hate. Tolerance to a point, not agreement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in spite of the fact that academic institutions are churning out very good jazz musicians at a rate never before seen.
I would beg do differ. I would say that uni's are churning out academics who play at jazz in a very academic manner at a rate never before seen.

 

Jazz is such an insignificant percentage of the music market anymore that new standards really aren't 'important'. Alternately, the new standards are more in the smooth jazz/RnB realm - just because the music's electric doesn't stop it from becoming a standard. It's all about your audience and what they would consider a standard, not what the guys on stage see as a standard.

A ROMpler is just a polyphonic turntable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came from a day, when there were very very few so called genre's of music.

The number today is highly artificial to me

 

To me, a melody stands on its own, forget about jazz or swing or this genre or that

Melody is melody and it is very difficult to write a great melody. It always has been and it likely always will be hard to hear and compose a great melody.

SOme math minded ( as opposed to MUSIC minded ) folks say that the reason it is difficult to write a great melody is the math, there are none left!! DO you believe that??

 

All the standards are not great melodies ( who says so? ME says so )

but they are good melodies for the most part, and a few are great.

Do you all cultivate that kind of discriminating thinking? poor, ok, good, better, great?? Hmmm.

You don't have ideas, ideas have you

We see the world, not as it is, but as we are. "One mans food is another mans poison". I defend your right to speak hate. Tolerance to a point, not agreement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I am REALLY out on a limb my gig was cancelled tonight so I am pissed!

 

I am going to mention some melodies- I am going to dare to put some melodies out there, an invite you to do the same.

 

When I think of melody, ( this topic to me, is all about the dearth of great melodies or very good ones- sooo ) I first try to imagine being the composer who actually started with nothing, and somehow this melody came about- That process impresses me. And I probably need to try it

 

Ok here are some melodies that are either killer, or just amazing that a person could possibly hear this

 

Dance of Maya by John McLaughlin amazing to me

 

Night on Bald Mountain yikes

 

Ave Maria both versions

 

Prelude to a Kiss

 

Pensativa key of F# bridge in C!!!

 

the fact that Jobim came up with F# ( or in original key D major ) as the first bridge chord and managed to make it work ) Girl From Ipanema

 

Come Sunday Duke

 

April in Paris one of the greatest standards

 

Bubbles Bangles and Beads

 

"The Best is Yet to Come" just the construction

 

"One", the construction

 

Lush Life

 

The Dolphin

 

Butterfly

 

Dolphin Dance

 

The long Introduction to Tristan and isolde Try to imagine hearing that!

 

The Island

 

Love Dance

 

Dinorah

 

Puccini in general

 

Cinema Paradiso theme

 

Tchaikovsky in general

 

If I Should Lose You, Birds version

 

Bach Toccata and Fugue in Dm

 

Most of these melodies are heavily harmonically laced- so I am aware of that.

 

Just a small start

You don't have ideas, ideas have you

We see the world, not as it is, but as we are. "One mans food is another mans poison". I defend your right to speak hate. Tolerance to a point, not agreement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...