Jazz chops - synonymous with “being good”?

[KuruPrionz]

Jazz chops - synonymous with “being good”?

 

No, jazz chops are not synonymous with being good. You can be good and have jazz chops, you can be no good and have jazz chops. You can be good and not have jazz chops and you can be no good and not have jazz chops. 

 

I'll never forget one night when I was in the kitchen cleaning things up and I heard one note coming from the 3" speaker in the television in the living room. 

I heard that one note and instantly thought "BB King is on television." I dropped what I was doing and went into the living room to watch BB. 

 

One note is nott jazz, or blues, or anything. He told me who he was with one note. 

[ElmerJFudd]

58 minutes ago, CyberGene said:

 

As a CyberGene I really appreciate that performance of Gene Harris who was not known to me, thank you! 👍🏻 Indeed, it immediately made me tap with my foot! 🕺🏻

 

To clarify regarding some of my previous statements. I had been a HUGE jazz for something like 20+ years. I used to listen all day long almost 95% to jazz and swallow everything I got my ears on, starting from early jazz and blues through bebop, post-bop, fusion, funk, acid-jazz but mostly gravitating towards modern post-bop on one hand, and worldy/new-agey jazz on other, with Oregon (the band) getting a lot of play on my Walkman as well as most of the European jazz and ECM stuff. Heck, I was devastated and cried so much when Esbjörn Svensson died in that scuba diving accident, he was my favorite pianist 😢 Along with Chick and Herbie of course. And some Dave Grusin.

 

So, blame it on this total overdo with jazz music, and most importantly the newest plethora of excellent post-bop pianists and bands that seemed like growing from every corner that made jazz for me a boring and even obnoxious music. As silly as it may sound, I was finally able to understand all these friends of mine who used to mock jazz, kind of got what they disliked so much about jazz, despite fiercely arguing with them and defending jazz 😲

 

I understand my point of view is extreme... Apologies if some people take it as insulting. I tend to overemphasize my written emotions (also probably due to the fact I"m not a native English speaker and can't precisely see the actual weight of the words I use...)

 

I'm now mostly dedicated to classical music, with Scriabin being my big love. But what is funny is I "rediscover" stuff like The Doors. Stuff like Break On Through, Riders on the Storm and Light My Fire would bring me much more enjoyment than most of jazz. Apparently it's rather raw, primitive and unpolished when compared to jazz, yet it has such powerful emotion! Go figure 🧐

 

P.S. There are three jazz records that I will never stop loving: Kind of Blue and In a Silent Way. And (probably surprising...) Premonition by Paul McCandless (with Lyle Mays on the piano)! 

Our ears get tired.  I know mine do, which is why I have to change it up all the time.  Growing up in 70s America, there came a point where I was burnt on classic rock and southern rock especially.  FM radio killed it for me. I loved the bands, knew all the songs, played it to death in bands with friends.  I was becoming an adult and looking to source a wider palette of music and styles that weren’t being fed to me.  So I went cold turkey and just avoided it for years.  I’m over it now and can listen, play and enjoy it again. But 20/30 years have past.  
 

Music evolves and we evolve as listeners and makers of music.  

[funkyhammond]

1 hour ago, CyberGene said:

I understand my point of view is extreme... Apologies if some people take it as insulting.

 

 At least you stated in your original post that your opinion was "very biased" and "certainly outrageous". 😉

 

And to be fair, classical music has been analyzed to the umpteenth degree for centuries (not just decades). 

 

It sounds like you are on a musical journey, which is great. But trying to lump in generalizations about certain kinds of jazz comes off, well, not great. People enjoy whatever people enjoy. A piece of music/art that creates a powerful emotion in one person can be uninteresting to another person, for all sorts of reasons.

 

1 hour ago, CyberGene said:

So, blame it on this total overdo with jazz music, and most importantly the newest plethora of excellent post-bop pianists and bands that seemed like growing from every corner that made jazz for me a boring and even obnoxious music. As silly as it may sound, I was finally able to understand all these friends of mine who used to mock jazz, kind of got what they disliked so much about jazz

 

"Total overdo"?  Of jazz music??

 

 

People mock all sorts of music and art that they don't "get". Jazz is definitely not alone there. And if jazz is being revived "from every corner", I'm all for it. The cream will rise to the top. Creativity is hard and can't be taught and creative geniuses are rare, so the more the merrier. 

 

Serious question: have you ever tried using some recommendation algorithms from streaming services like Pandora, Spotify, etc.? If there are certain jazz artists/albums that you still very much enjoy, I wonder if you might stumble on other artists you might like. The technology is there to help you walk around the mounds of post-bop bands littering the corners and obnoxiously blowing their horns in your face. 😉

 

[Al Quinn]

3 hours ago, Delaware Dave said:

 

chuck leavell playing jazz ....

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cats_on_the_Coast

 

Great album! I saw Sea Level at Radio City Music Hall in the late 70’s or early 80’s and they were great. I guess jazz is a pretty broad term. To me that music is jazzy but also has a lot of blues, gospel, funk, and rock influences. I’d be surprised if any of those tunes are played on traditional jazz radio stations.
 

When I referred to jazz I was thinking of straight ahead jazz because that’s what I thought the OP was referring to, but I could be wrong. I was thinking of folks like Oscar Peterson, Bill Evans, Keith Jarrett, Red Garland, Wynton Kelly, Brad Meldau, McCoy Tyner, etc.

[Jonathan Hughes]

Christian Scott, Jakob Bro, Sasha Berliner, Brian Blade and the Fellowship Band, Søren Dahl Jeppesen, Brandee Younger, and Julian Lage all come to mind as artists who play (and record with people) jazz that’s where “chops” aren’t the focus. Of course, they’re all masters of their instruments, but they tend to play more minimally.

[CyberGene]

29 minutes ago, funkyhammond said:

And to be fair, classical music has been analyzed to the umpteenth degree for centuries (not just decades). 

Yes, but the difference between a pre-composed music (sometimes for years, think some great symphonies) and improvised music makes that analysis and the school of learning it vastly different. Playing jazz is mostly a skill. You can learn it. Of course it requires talent and not everybody would become Miles, Chick or Herbie but more or less it's just something that you master.

 

If I have to invent a metaphor here. Classical music is like an architect designing anything from a small cabin to an opera house, king's palace or a skyscraper and builders realizing it. Jazz is like painters improvising at painting the building on the outside. Different painters would paint it differently but it's always that you can change only the color (and ornaments) of its facade.

 

29 minutes ago, funkyhammond said:

Serious question: have you ever tried using some recommendation algorithms from streaming services like Pandora, Spotify, etc.? If there are certain jazz artists/albums that you still very much enjoy, I wonder if you might stumble on other artists you might like. The technology is there to help you walk around the mounds of post-bop bands littering the corners and obnoxiously blowing their horns in your face.

 

I am myself a software engineer by trade, so I've used all these services since the very beginning. I think it was Pandora that made me discover so many new post-bop artists and at the same time open my eyes about how same and dull everything was 🤣 This goes as a side-line to the thread but the easy access to music and streaming is both a blessing and a curse IMO. 

[funkyhammond]

9 minutes ago, CyberGene said:

Yes, but the difference between a pre-composed music (sometimes for years, think some great symphonies) and improvised music makes that analysis and the school of learning it vastly different. Playing jazz is mostly a skill. You can learn it. Of course it requires talent and not everybody would become Miles, Chick or Herbie but more or less it's just something that you master.

 

I don't know. Stating that playing jazz is mostly a skill and just something that you master makes it sound like a sport. So what about playing with experience, emotion, deep expressivity? Regardless of whether we're talking jazz, classical or any genre, is that just a skill that you master? And what about the creativity of the interpretation?

 

You're right, every jazz musician will not become Miles, Chick or Herbie just like every classical pianist won't become Horowitz or every classical composer Beethoven (pick your favourites). Are present-day classical composers not falling into the trap of over-study and being mostly derivative? I'm guessing they are because I've read about it so many times over the years. And the conservative culture of classical music doesn't help in that regard. I know there are some unique composers out there that are unorthodox (e.g. John Luther Adams) but they would seem to be in a small minority. And how many contemporary classical compositions have any real staying power? I'm actually not that familiar with contemporary classical music so I may be talking out of my ass.

 

Anyway, I do like it when jazz artists do pieces with more composed elements or when they blend concepts from jazz and classical (sometimes called third stream). I always really liked Miles' album Sketches of Spain for that reason. I sometimes listen to AccuRadio (formerly AccuJazz) so that I can pick particular subgenres of jazz to explore. The Third Stream channel is definitely one I come back to whenever I get a bit tired of more typical jazz.

 

[KuruPrionz]

1 hour ago, funkyhammond said:

 

I don't know. Stating that playing jazz is mostly a skill and just something that you master makes it sound like a sport. So what about playing with experience, emotion, deep expressivity? Regardless of whether we're talking jazz, classical or any genre, is that just a skill that you master? And what about the creativity of the interpretation?

 

You're right, every jazz musician will not become Miles, Chick or Herbie just like every classical pianist won't become Horowitz or every classical composer Beethoven (pick your favourites). Are present-day classical composers not falling into the trap of over-study and being mostly derivative? I'm guessing they are because I've read about it so many times over the years. And the conservative culture of classical music doesn't help in that regard. I know there are some unique composers out there that are unorthodox (e.g. John Luther Adams) but they would seem to be in a small minority. And how many contemporary classical compositions have any real staying power? I'm actually not that familiar with contemporary classical music so I may be talking out of my ass.

 

Anyway, I do like it when jazz artists do pieces with more composed elements or when they blend concepts from jazz and classical (sometimes called third stream). I always really liked Miles' album Sketches of Spain for that reason. I sometimes listen to AccuRadio (formerly AccuJazz) so that I can pick particular subgenres of jazz to explore. The Third Stream channel is definitely one I come back to whenever I get a bit tired of more typical jazz.

 

It could be simple. I thought of Thelonius Monk more in terms of his creative use of silences than any other aspect of his excellent playing. His timing and breaks brought a unique perspective to jazz improvisations. 

 

There are many styles of playing where virtuosity is pegged higher than emotional melodic expression, jazz is not unique in that respect. Bluegrass was mentioned above, Metal is certainly a contender and I'm certain there are more. There are wonderful, expressive musicians in all styles as well. Sometimes you'll hear one playing at a local dive bar, I have more than once. 

 

If sucess is based on cash flow then McDonald's is the worlds greatest restaurant and Brittney Spears is one of the all time finest female vocalists. 

[KuruPrionz]

14 minutes ago, Dave Ferris said:

Jazz is a very personal  and unique Art form, certainly not for everyone. If it didn't take a specialized skill to play and was easily accessible like pop or rock, it would lose the magic that makes it so special. People make extraordinary sacrifices in their lives to be able to play this music at a serious level.

 

I've worked hard in my life to arrive at a point where I finally feel comfortable to be able to call myself a Jazz Musician. I'm proud yet humbled by that tag or classification, knowing what has come before me and what I have to live up to. I don't take it lightly in the least bit.

While you CAN play "easlily accessable" pop or rock, it is not a requirement of either style and there are many examples of complex and esoteric pop or rock music. 

The best music by Joni Mitchell, Steely Dan, 10cc, Yes, David Bowie, King Crimson and many others is not exactly "easily accessable". This is only covering the music, the lyrics are another thing entirely. Jazz has a strong history of taking campy pop from the 30's and 40's and expanding upon it, even though many of the lyrics are pretty schmaltzy. One could certainly compose music on the same level that is also equally challenging to the finest jazz performances although for entirely different reasons. Harmonic complexity is no more or less profound than the micro-tones or percussive variations that many other musics provide. 

 

Jazz is a music like no other, that does not somehow elevate it to some higher plane of existence, there is no shortage of fluffy or crappy jazz. 

The very best music of all types is staggering, amazing. 

Denigrating music that you've categorized for convenience is not particularly convincing. Above I mention hearing BB King tell me who he was with one note. I recognized the player instantly, he made a sound that was individual to his very existence. 

 

Can you play one note and I will know who you are? Think about that. 😇 Cheers, Kuru

[CyberGene]

4 hours ago, funkyhammond said:

So what about playing with experience, emotion, deep expressivity? Regardless of whether we're talking jazz, classical or any genre, is that just a skill that you master? And what about the creativity of the interpretation?

What's important to note here is jazz musicians are performers because the most important element of jazz is improvisation and that's a performance technique. As such it's a skill that needs to be learned and trained, it benefits from a lot of practice. When speaking about classical music I mean the composers, not the performers. I comment not as a musician, but as a listener. When I listen to classical music I mostly listen to the composer (of course the interpretation is very important but unless it's pretty bad, I hear the composer). And jazz is about the particular performer improvising over some structure (sometimes more complex compositions but still).

 

With that in mind, I don't believe the great composers learnt how to become great composers. They certainly went through some evolution and some of them learned music but ultimately they were born geniuses. Nobody could learn how to be a Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, etc. Those guys were all excellent improvisers though. In Bach's time it was common for the basso continuo part (keyboard basically) to be written in figured bass notation, which is basically what a lead sheet to a jazz musician is. So, composing and improvising are interleaved but I still think things got a bit more distanced with the time. Nowadays classical pianists are predominantly just performers of scores. And jazz musicians are predominantly improvisers over some well-established structures and forms (of course, a lot of exceptions and a lot of great jazz composers/improvisers).

 

4 hours ago, funkyhammond said:

Anyway, I do like it when jazz artists do pieces with more composed elements or when they blend concepts from jazz and classical (sometimes called third stream). I always really liked Miles' album Sketches of Spain for that reason. I sometimes listen to AccuRadio (formerly AccuJazz) so that I can pick particular subgenres of jazz to explore. The Third Stream channel is definitely one I come back to whenever I get a bit tired of more typical jazz.

Yes, nowadays I still (rarely though) listen to jazz and when I do, I prefer those that remind me of classical music form and composition. Oregon are among my favorites, also Lyle Mays, Pat Metheny Group, Chick Corea, some of Miles, Billy Childs... I'm not very fond of the third stream though.

 

P.S. Regarding hobbyists vs professional musicians. Let me clarify I comment entirely as a listener in this thread. I think I understand jazz, I used to love it, I totally appreciate the skill needed, the work and lifetime needed to achieve that level and such. But if some music requires understanding and is targeted towards other musicians, then it's apparent it is a self-limiting art, in terms of reach of course. I'm not sure jazz musicians seek huge audience, they are aware of that. It's only that from time to time some jazz musicians on TV or interviews, etc. seem to express bitter disappointment with people's tastes, their lack of appreciation for jazz, etc. and I don't like that. I mean, if one chose an art that requires from others to be musicians to appreciate it, then they shouldn't accuse the common man of anything. Maybe try to encourage people to become musicians, so that they can appreciate jazz, rather than accusing. It's a trap many people fall for, not just in jazz, not just in music, it's a common phenomenon in arts.

[ElmerJFudd]

4 hours ago, Dave Ferris said:

It took me all of five seconds thinking about it to know-- I can tell you, like most hobbyists that choose to post under an anonymous handle here, aren't at a musical level to get it. You like to post a lot and write a lot of words with examples trying to impress me with your encompassing knowledge of all styles but the more you (and others on this thread) write, the more I know you don't understand what's at the core of jazz music or improvisation  in the least. Unless I hear you on something, know your working background, I can't at all take you very serious. Think about that.

 

edit- that's always a major problem trying to coexist in a community that's a mix of hobbyists and real players. You can never have common ground because of life experiences. Think about it.

Dave, I love jazz music (among many other styles) and think you are a great jazz pianist.  As you know I am only a casual student of it, I find it useful on my gigs where it makes a small % of material played.  If you lived nearby I’d enjoy to take lessons with you because there’s a wealth of knowledge and experience floating around that brain. I also think, despite your at times curmudgeon-like demeanor 😊, that you are generous with your time and enjoy to share what you’ve learned.  

 

That said.  You mustn’t take offense because a musical style you have dedicated your musical life to doesn’t resonate with all musicians and audiences.  That was your path and your musical journey.  It’s not for everyone.  In fact, I’d suggest that people play best, practice most passionately and make the best music of their lives when they’re making music that they love.  
 

Music is a cultural phenomenon and different cultures on this 7 billion people planet make different music.  I assure you there are - to use the OP’s terminology - “good” players everywhere.  The OP is asking the question - does he have to study jazz to be good?  Well, no he doesn’t if jazz isn’t what he wants to be good at.  And given the limited time he has as a father and full time employment in another field - the advice he’s receiving is to not worry about what other people think and play what he loves to play. This is sound life advice in my anonymous amateurish opinion. 😉

[Adan]

I thought that at its most fundamental level this thread was not about jazz per se but about the deeper question of "why and for whom do you make art?"  Do you make art to please other people, and in particular other artists, or to please yourself?  Don't we all spend endless time thinking and talking about this?  It's a dialectic in which gravitating towards one pole inevitably causes you to swing back towards the other.  

[ElmerJFudd]

15 minutes ago, Dave Ferris said:

Read my last thought on my last rambling post.. Again I felt compelled to stand up for the music and the musicians that decide to make it their calling in life. I'm not trying to sell anybody anything. If you don't like it, move on. I don't like it when anonymous hobbyists gang up on something they have no clue about.

 

Most times in recent years when one of these type of threads appear, I normally stay clear of  them but this time I didn't.

I understand.  It can be frustrating to listen to people who don’t want or care to understand what it takes.  The sacrifices made, to achieve more than proficiency, to be  fluid, dare I say touch mastery and earn the respect of one’s peers in any field.  And in a cut throat business like music where anything catchy can be a hit and more sophisticated styles have an ever decreasing audience.  Exasperating. Most of this community gets it, surely? I think so.  Even if they don’t enjoy to post.  

[Legatoboy]

I understand your beef and point, what you said about Jazz, .. I was as a young man a Benmont Tench type of player multi=keyboardist but have also  spent the past  30+ years studying Jazz on and off in the background...mostly on, but I had mostly played out Blues and Blues rock (in bands more recently) and occasional solo jazz piano gigs mostly as I gained more jazz understanding/skills. Nice to be able to play your own gig... that does feel good, But listen to what I have to say ...

 

 I was lucky to study with a very good/ open jazz pianist 13 years my senior who was 15 years old in 1955... I am currently 67.

 

So he would say to me very jazz oriented players chop type of stuff, stuff that you brought up in your 1st post as evidence of the advancement or non of well known Jazz players/artists present and way back, but he also taught Classical and he had opinions about that/them too in regard to good/ bad as far as 'advanced/chops etc etc ...

 

But then he would also say things like this: - Now because he (Larry) was the same age as Jack Bruce and Ginger Baker who were also intense BeBop musicians 1st as my teacher was, he'd  say.... " You know as a Jazz drummer, Ginger Baker was like a dime a dozen type of player, nothing special.... but it was in Rock were he truly expressed himself as an artist" ... so, with art/music like anything else the sign of intelligence is to be able to hold 2 ideas in the mind at the same time....you would figure he would reject Ginger totally in rock, but he didn't ..... he was always teaching people lessons Larry.... everyone... all the time! 

 

Jazz is a long study, was for me.... if you weren't headed in that trajectory there is a lot to restructure with some of it I found ....not to bad, but it runs on different fuel than Rock, Pop or Classical music.... forget the harmonic stuff, just 1st rhythmically  

 

He was so open man, I'm telling you..... cool as a cucumber cool in regard to 'art and expression'... forget about genre and style... 

Jazz is a wonderful artform and one can learn much from it, and that can be applied to almost all modern music (and classical actually) from studying it, I will say that, even if ones performance is not high in regard to playing it like  mine was most for 24 years of it until the last 6 years of study. I did as much as I could with a day gig and playing the Blues out in a full time gig for more than half the study ...but in the end it really paid off big, not only for playing jazz ... but it took a  long time... rhythmically was the key in the end for me, not harmonically as I imagined it would be..    and was a much better music study for me  than classical (although about 20 % of it was classical the way he taught his improvising students)  or being just steeped in pure Rock/Rock Blues/Blues by my wits.... but it is by far, not the only game in town... a you should remember that... performance of musical satisfaction comes in alot of colors...

 

gauge value based on 'what things are'  in the arts.... any of them, it's best to do that when gauging things I have found .....'for what it is' ... Jazz can get very glib and many audiences are not smart enough to know that  ... spend time with anything.... gets easier! Like anything else.... no big deal! 

 

Larry's  (teach) beef was: just don't call something 'devised'..... improvised .. that and classical peoples view of jazz musicians and jazz musical wisdom...as 'non-valid'! 

 

He liked BB King but not Eric Clapton.... 

 

hope some of this helps

[16251]

2 hours ago, Dave Ferris said:

Read my last thought on my last rambling post.. Again I felt compelled to stand up for the music and the musicians that decide to make it their calling in life. I'm not trying to sell anybody anything. If you don't like it, move on. I don't like it when anonymous hobbyists gang up on something they have no clue about.

 

Most times in recent years when one of these type of threads appear, I normally stay clear of  them but this time I didn't.

I don't judge anyone's posts about jazz with one exception. If you are going to explain jazz theory to me, you first have to share with me your music, practicing or gigging. I mean it is not to difficult with smart phones to record and share. What I've realized in the last 3-5 years, since I stopped working a 9-5 day gig, finally getting on Social Security early, and created a cheap lifestyle, is that it takes many hours everyday to listen, play, analyze and internalize jazz and even now I don't know if I will ever feel I understand it. The good news is I have the time and I am putting in the work. I just wish I had the mindset I have today 45 years ago.

 

I can explain jazz chops like this. Monk and Horace Silver have just a much chops as Oscar Peterson and Gonzalo Rubalcaba.

[Reezekeys]

On 5/20/2022 at 5:32 PM, nadroj said:

From growing up in the college music scene where “good” was synonymous with having jazz chops, where college lecturers (incidentally, usually the non-instrumentalist tutors) would comment that they were looking for “faster lines” to get a better grade, to the current cancerous Instagram music culture where people with the most out-there chops get the most views and get most attention from the algorithms. 

 

You went to the wrong college for music. "Faster lines", are you kidding me? As far as the push for "out-there" chops that get the views & attention: that certainly applies to way more kinds of music than jazz. Not to mention that this attention predates any kinds of social media exposure (though social media certainly makes it easier). When it comes to Joe & Jane Q public, chops sell - always have.

 

On 5/20/2022 at 5:32 PM, nadroj said:

I don’t want to be a jazzer, but for a lot of my peers, jazz is the be all and end all. And the truth is that in the genres I really connect with (blues, funk, gospel), there’s a hell of a lot of overlap with mainstream jazz. Players who are good at one are usually good at the other.

 

There's lots of jazz players that suck at blues and gospel. And, I never heard Richard Tee play Giant Steps. Of course he had no reason or need to. So why not follow the same path? Why should you give an F about the expectations of your jazzer "peers"? Play what you want. If there's a music scene near you with a demand for that kind of playing and you're good at it, you should do well, no? Why the inferiority complex?

 

On 5/20/2022 at 5:32 PM, nadroj said:

During my time in college I got invited into the city’s main jazz circle once, where all the best musicians are, and was asked to fill in for someone at a straight jazz gig. I never got asked back, and promptly removed myself from that scene afterwards. It just wasn’t me, and the result was that I didn’t get to know the music scene here in the same way a lot of my peers did. I still played regularly, and was sought after for other reasons, but never for my chops. Problem is now that I’m in a place where I actually want some chops, I still don’t want to play jazz.

 

Ok maybe we're getting a little closer to the crux here. What is this equating of the ability to play jazz with "chops"? You took a gig you shouldn't have, and got vibed on by the "jazzers." You can take comfort in the fact that most of those folks with the "jazz chops" that vibed you will be doing £60 gigs the rest of their lives while expressing their bitterness at not being appreciated for their "art." Frank Zappa said it best when he called jazz "the music of unemployment." What you're dealing with here is simple psychology, not any statement about one's musical abilities or the lack thereof. Here was a gig that involved playing the kind of music you either don't enjoy or lack the talent to do. What shame is there in saying no to that? I've turned down many gigs when I knew I would suck at playing the style of music required. How can you enjoy playing music knowing you're not gonna do well - in front of your bandmates and an audience? It defies logic, to me at least.

 

On 5/20/2022 at 5:32 PM, nadroj said:

The problem I have is that it’s hard to find a non-jazz musician who knows their stuff and CAN’T also play jazz well. “Oh great, he’s a blues guy, he’s really good at what he does and he doesn’t seem to have many jazz ch— oh look here’s a video of him playing Actual Proof with one hand” is common.

 

That tells me there are some well-rounded musicians in your area. To me that would be a challenge to be exceptionally good at the particular style you want to play and enjoy playing - better than the "jack of all trades" folks that are decent at many styles but maybe not great at any one of them. The only fly in the ointment is that you may need to get yourself some different "peers." 🙂

 

On 5/20/2022 at 5:32 PM, nadroj said:

That’s the thing that discourages me. Just now I’m mostly liking rhythm based guys - guys who’s music is based mostly

off of making melody and grooves…but if you look them up on YouTube chances are you’ll find those same guys shredding through Giant Steps changes like it’s nothing.

 

So you're bummed because you see these great players out there that can play well in different genres. I might get onto trouble here, but it kinda sounds like you're fishing for the sentinents I see so often: "don't beat yourself up, those jazzers are just showing off, all those scales and fast licks are just so devoid of 'emotion'. Chops don't matter, it's the feeling that counts." Is this really what you want to hear? Sorry, "chops" and "feeling" or "emotion" are not always mutually exclusive - though they certainly can be (and in way more genres than jazz). I think it's very simple-minded to equate "jazz chops" with empty scales lacking emotional content - IMNSHO it's bullshit and a shuck & jive employed by a lot of musicians with an inferiority complex and/or lack of talent. And what exactly are "jazz chops" anyway - playing fast lines over Giant Steps? There's a little more to this music than that.

 

I guess I wasn't too empathetic here! Sorry. Here's my advice: play the music you like, work hard at being as good a player as you can in that style, and let the chips fall where they may. Be open to changing your outlook and opinions on what you may enjoy playing. And- don't give two shits about who's getting the views or clicks! Good luck and I hope the gigs you like start coming your way.

 

(PS - you've probably heard Cory Wong - a guitarist that leads a band and to the best of my knowledge, never solos! It's all rhythm playing. This music is out there, and there seem to be a market for it - smaller though it may be).

[funkyhammond]

4 hours ago, CyberGene said:

But if some music requires understanding and is targeted towards other musicians, then it's apparent it is a self-limiting art, in terms of reach of course. 

 

A strange statement to make considering how few young people today seek out classical music. Classical and jazz both have this problem. What about the conservative nature of classical music that I mentioned? And that there is very little in the way of contemporary classical compositions that goes beyond just being very derivate or that has any staying power. Is that not self-limiting? 

 

Much of modern music requires understanding because it is harmonically and rhythmically a lot more sophisticated than anything humans used to do musically thousands of years ago. And in all genres of music, you can have, for example, tunes that are more "catchy" and will even appeal to small children, and tunes that are not and require a more sophisticated, mature ear. For children, the understanding can begin from simply what they are exposed to. Someone who has grown up with jazz playing in the home will "understand" that music more than classical and vice versa. And there are plenty of examples of very accessible jazz music, particularly vocal jazz (I'm not sure why this hasn't been brought up yet), but also instrumentals like the Peanuts music by Vince Guaraldi, the Pink Panther theme, etc. Again, I don't really see a difference on the point about accessibility when it comes to the general genres. There are countless ways that humans can express themselves, and not just in the arts. I find getting into the minutia of specific genres/subgenres within an art form and trying to make generalizations about why one is more expressive than another quite problematic and, in the end, seems ultimately just about bias.

 

Music is often compared to storytelling. Symphonies may be more like long novels whereas most other music is like short stories. There certainly are some nice interesting long arcs that you can do in a novel and deeper character development. That's one of the reasons why I also liked concept albums in rock music. But that just speaks to some of the unique aspects of having a very long form. Short stories can also by very interesting and endlessly creative. But some people may prefer one form over another depending on their personality, mood, how much time they have, etc.

 

 

[Steve Nathan]

8 hours ago, KuruPrionz said:

there is no shortage of fluffy or crappy jazz. 

👍

There's plenty of crappy in all genres, of course, but crappy Jazz seems to come with more than it's reasonable share of pretension.

[CyberGene]

37 minutes ago, funkyhammond said:

A strange statement to make considering how few young people today seek out classical music. Classical and jazz both have this problem.

 

Yes, true, but classical music exists in itself. It's not lost after the composer dies because classical music is the actual score. Performed or not (score stored in a library), it's the very essence of classical music: the score. While jazz is a performance skill: the skill to improvise in the jazz idiom. It doesn't exist independently of the performer. You can notate and transcribe jazz performance and of course all the great jazz records remain but that's not the point of jazz. Once there are no jazz musicians jazz is dead.

 

With that in mind, and to go to the root of this thread: the jazz chops as a requirement for being a good musicians. And also the rather nasty sidelining of jazz musicians looking from above at other musicians... Well, that's the huge gap between classical music and jazz, despite both being the most obscure music for the youth nowadays 😀 Yes, classical music brings that elitism with old people in concert halls expecting complete silence and protocols and even dress-code and whatnot but that is superficial and comes from the audience and the listeners, not from the composers and musicians, it's just a nasty side-effect.

[ElmerJFudd]

I think comparing what it requires to reach mastery in highly developed art forms like  jazz and classical music is a fruitless endeavor.  The list of people who have done so in either is short.  The list of people who have done so in both is minuscule.  That’s a pretty good indicator of the talent, dedication, effort and sacrifices necessary.  
 

It’s unfortunate that instrumental  music that explores the elements of music making so deeply isn’t automatically adored by audiences all over the world.  It’s also an understandable reality! 😊 Thankfully these traditions live on because of great players who take up the important job of being teachers.  Creating new players and fans of the music.  I know when I’m seeing a great player or ensemble that I’m likely listening next to people that play at some level and that’s a great community to be in. Which is also why I shoot the breeze here. 

[Steve Nathan]

4 hours ago, Dave Ferris said:

You know I love BB King but I can tell you if someone put a chart of something like Benny Golson's "whisper not" in front of him, which is a sophisticated Blues that changes key centers multiple times, he would've been lost. I loved BB's collaboration with Wynton Marsalis. Wynton, needless to say, is a very smart guy and picked the tunes to play that were in BBs wheelhouse, as well as for Clapton.

Dave, I think my issue here is that like lots of musicians, you place a significant amount of value on complexity.  Many of us don't agree.  Sure, Whisper Not is more complicated, harder to learn, harder to navigate, but does that make it "Better"?  That's the prevailing "wisdom" among most casual and professional observers, but many of us prefer the intangible beauty, the "Feel" in the seemingly simpler form, and submit that Winton would have been just as lost on stage with SRV as you feel BB would be with Bill Evans.  I had the opposite upbringing story.  I started as a 3 year old and was soon playing nothing but Brubeck, Oscar, Shearing, Ray Bryant, Les McCann....

My piano teachers were Jazz players, and they urged my parents to send me to Jazz Camps and Schools.  Then around 11 0r 12 yrs, my older brother started bring home Jackie Wilson & Wilson Picket records.  I found Chuck Berry and Johnny Johnson.  Soon I fell deep into the records coming out of Memphis and (my future home) Muscle Shoals, and that was that, and I haven't looked back with even an ounce of regret since.  I'm often told "I just don't understand Jazz", but from my perspective, most Jazz musicians I've seen don't understand Blues, R&B, Soul, and it's obvious to my ears every time they play "Down" to those seemingly less complex art forms.  

[KuruPrionz]

@ Dave Ferris, I apologize if I offended you (I will pm you with this also in the event you've left the thread).

That was not my intention. 

So, who am I? A fellow musician who chose a completely different path than you did, I played my first "gig" at 14 and somehow find myself being 66 with decades of gigging behind me, we've all taken a break for a bit with this Covid thing - I did gig this last Friday. Guitar spoke to me in ways that no other instrument could, I tried many other paths but always came back to guitar. 

 

The "tell me who yyou are with one note" schtick is an evil trick I came up with. A guitar/trumpet/sax/violin/etc. can do that although not many guitarists can do that. A piano? Pick a note, press the key, that's it. That's not where piano gets it's expression. FWIW I've seen both Artur Rubenstein and Herbie Hancock in concert and loved both performances. 

 

My brother got me started listening to jazz when I was 14 or 15 and I love to hear it. There were not many gigs for jazz musicians in central California and recently up here there was a show scheduled for last Sunday with 8 fantastic local jazz musicians at a great outdoor venue with a cover charge of $10. I planned on going until they cancelled it due to lack of sales, sad. I tried to take lessons from the late George Roessler, who played guitar with Pharoah Sanders and others but he wasn't the best teacher (wonderful player) and between his poor penmanship and my rather extreme nearsightedness I had to let that go. 

 

So I went with popular music since I could just go play and get paid. I spent 9 years in a band in Fresno with an excellent singer (and fine guitarist) who knew so many songs that I've never heard them all. We didn't practice after a couple of rehearsals early on and never had a set list in those 9 years. We were booked every Thu/Fr/Sat and one time we played 16 gigs in 14 days. A bit on the low-rent side of life compared to what you've accomplished but I've done my time in the trenches. 

 

This isn't much, a one take per track ramble in4/4 time, just E and A from back when I was learning to record - the bells and choir at the end were played on a guitar with a MIDI pickup. The intro might tell you a little bit about me at least. 

https://metapop.com/opossum-apocalypse/tracks/opossum-apocalypse-long-mix/180793

 

I'm not hiding anything from anybody here by using an alias. The internet is many things, among them is a potentially dangerous human cesspit. A pseudonym is a feeble attempt at deflection perhaps but maybe better than nothing. 

 

When I mention Joni Mitchell I am primarily feeling the vocals, even the Blue album has some wonderful singing and Joni's singing stands tall in my world. Her stories are iconic as well. She hired some incredible talent but that's never been my focus except maybe for Jaco on Don Juan's Reckless Daughter. 

 

I'm not here to slam anybody, it's easy to be misunderstood when posting on the internet and I have a tendency to poke the bear sometimes in hopes of learning something. 

It seems to have worked again. Best wishes!!!!

Respect,

Kuru aka Michael

[KuruPrionz]

2 minutes ago, Dave Ferris said:

  Steve, I don't like a piece of music for its complexity sake. On the contrary I chose that particular Benny Golson tune as an example because a skilled player can make it sound uncomplicated and like a Minor Blues, thus hopefully accessible to even non-jazz listeners.  Music should ebb and flow so the listener isn't bombarded with technical shit.

 

A tune like Herbie's masterpiece Dolphin Dance is a very complicated tune but also perhaps one of the most beautiful jazz compositions ever written. To navigate the changes but to sound like you understand the form of and can play melodies with single notes or create a unique sounding color with a chord voicing in a certain place...that's the kind of effect that I strive for in my playing. I never want a  listener to comment on my chops. I'm looking at the finished product....much ulike a well crafted pop tune or rock tune.

 

Every time a chops thread came up in the past -- a long time ago I can recall a thread about Gonzolo Rubalcala...and there's always the threads on Hiromi........-- I've always lamented about the faster, higher and louder effect in all music. I highly admire both of those aforementioned artists but I often feel playing like that fuels the fire that jazz is about chops and complexity. A lot of my jazz listening and favorite artists are people like Paul Desmond, Jim Hall, Chet Baker, Tommy Flanagan, Hank Jones and Fred Hersch. People who you would not associate with monster chops, intensity and complexity. But more lyricism

 

Pardon my ignorance with the abbreviation of SRV but I don't know what that relates to.

SRV = Stevie Ray Vaughn, FWIW. 😋

[Jonathan Hughes]

SRV=Stevie Ray Vaughan

[CyberGene]

I call a good jazz musician one who can improvise over So What and can do so for a few minutes without boring you 😀 Being well-versed over Giant Steps in fast tempo and playing always the proper scale, lick, pattern, modal interchange, inside-outisde, upper structires and all these very advanced and slick-sounding devices that instill fear and respect in other musicians, is something that can be learnt. It's pretty damn hard and I realized I would never be even remotely capable of doing so but it's reachable. However that doesn't translate into being able to make a meaningful and convincing playing over two dorian modes a semitone apart. I've seen enough biggish names embarrassing themselves over So What.

[KuruPrionz]

6 minutes ago, Dave Ferris said:

Ah of course. Shows my ignorance of his legacy.

 

Michael , thanks for sharing your music and background with me. I enjoyed your playing on a very adventurous tune. I also want to apologize and walk back my comment of "before you were playing" as well. That obviously wasn't the case. I'm a little more testy as of late not being able to run. If you might check in briefly on the OT thread, I'm relegated to the sidelines right now and I'm more irritable then usual and just generally miserable... Maybe like someone trying to quit smoking. So I'm sorry if I came off like some pompous @sshole, not my intention.

Thanks for your response Dave, I'd rather be friends!!!

FWIW, I will probably never be able to run again, I had reconstructive foot surgery last May and have 3 long screw and 3 large staples in my right foot. 

I need the endorphins too or I want to kill and maim!!!! 🤣

We have some nice city walks up and down hills, Taylor St is STEEP and walking briskly up from 12th to 17th makes me a happy camper. 

4 times a week, minimum and the rest of the world is allowed to live!!! 

Cheers, Kuru

[funkyhammond]

2 hours ago, CyberGene said:

It's not lost after the composer dies because classical music is the actual score.

 

A lot of information in classical music is handed down through the generations. Depending on how detailed a score is, a lot of information can be lost if all you had was the piece of paper and absolutely zero cultural context. For a symphony, you wouldn't even know what the different instruments sounded like.

 

2 hours ago, CyberGene said:

Once there are no jazz musicians jazz is dead.

 

But what about other genres of music? If there were no rock musicians, would rock music be dead? It's not like rock music is normally fully scored. So why pick on jazz? 

 

Improvisation may be one key element of jazz but it's not the only element. People don't only listen to jazz for the improvisations. If that were the case, why even have vocal jazz? Why have big band jazz with its intricate arrangements? Improvisation is also a big element in blues and Indian classical music. Again, why pick on jazz?

 

 

2 hours ago, CyberGene said:

And also the rather nasty sidelining of jazz musicians looking from above at other musicians... Well, that's the huge gap between classical music and jazz, despite both being the most obscure music for the youth nowadays

 

Wait, what? Are you trying to tell me that classical musicians aren't competitive in the same way? C'mon you're denying human nature now. I find this incredibly hard to believe unless you know for a fact that competitive nastiness doesn't happen in classical music. I'll believe it if I can hear it from working classical musicians playing in orchestra.

 

[Ed A.]

Good technique doesn’t necessarily mean soul and feeling.

[Tusker]

Just my hack two cents ...

 

I can hear all of us expressing our love for music in our answers to the question. We pretty universally make the case that music is more than mere chops, even if we define "chops" differently. Is it "chops" when a singer captures the attention of an audience with a single note? For me, yes. Chops is a broad term.

 

The last part of the question is what I'd like to gently raise to our consciousness. Are jazz chops synonymous with being "good?" I think we all go through periods of feeling not "good" enough. So let's deconstruct that by throwing out some ideas.

 

Are jazz chops synonymous with being "good" at jazz? Sure. I guess.

 

Are jazz chops synonymous with being "good" at other musical things? Depends on the cultural distance, right? Much of the time, no.

 

What kinds of musical things would you like to be "good" at?

 

Love to all.

[timwat]

When I hear the term "a good player" or "a good musician", I think of someone who I enjoy listening to. That's not everyone's interpretation of that phrase, but it has been mine for a while now, as well as most of the musos I hang with.

 

Which is why I used that term "jazz aware" a few years ago - I enjoy playing with others who have some familiarity with the jazz vocabulary (harmonic, melodic, and most especially rhythmic). It won't automatically mean I'm going to enjoy listening to their playing. But at its best, it might mean there's a deeper wellspring from which to draw to say something I enjoy hearing. Painting with a wide palette of colors rather than pencil and paper, so to speak.

 

Chops is indeed a very broad term. I generally associate that word with technical facility, like being able to play cleanly at fast tempos. That's a useful tool to have in the tool chest, and one that is indicative of having put the time in with your butt in the chair. And all by itself, doesn't guarantee anything about actual musicality.

 

At the end of the day, a big part of what we do is make people feel things with our music. That's real chops, to my way of thinking.