Bilbo

Rufus Reid - The Evolving Bassist - simply laid out, it will give you the stuff you need to make sense of the thing and then you can move in any direction you see fit.

Coull be one of a few things but I guess its to do with the settings you have in relation to MIDI in and MIDI out (the one that determines which device makes the noise - could be your internal soundcard, your VST instruments or an external module). I don't know what the different boxes are called tho' and am reluctant to confuse you. I am at work and don't have the manual handy to refer to for the correct terminology. Can anyone else help?.

Learn to read music, get loads of theory under your belt and learn to play some burning jazz solos. Then go to a local jam session and kick some a***.

I am often overawed at my capacity to disappoint myself It only ever comes together about once or twice a year. The rest of teh time, I am looking for the motherlode and winning nothing more than a pan of gravel....!

That's not an argument, its sarcasm, which is the lowest form of wit. I COMPLETELY agree with the arguments against jazz musicians and tired old versions of the standards. There is a growing list of standards that I won't play. I COMPLETELY agree that a lot of jazz musicians are inately conservative and think that anything recorded after my Dad was born is too 'modern'. I COMPLETELY agree that jazz musicians are their own worst enemy and often shoot themselves in the foot by what can only be called 'low production levels'. But this is no different to every other genre of music and doesn't change the fact that 'Mustang Sally' has become a parody if itself, as have 'Midnight Hour', 'Dock Of The Bay' and 'Superstition'. Pointing the slow unmoving finger of scorn at Jazz doesn't alter that in any way.

[quote name='steve-norris' post='328561' date='Nov 13 2008, 06:27 PM']Bilbo just shoot me please! Bilbo why do i like 'A kind of blue' ? is it not real jazz or is it some simplistic form that a mere mortal like myself understand?[/quote] You like the best selling and most influential jazz recording of all time? So what's the problem? (So what's the first track, as well! ) Its real, mate. You are a jazz fan. Deal with it.

Some people put notches on the handle of their guns when people cross them. I just get a carrot.

I was stood waiting for a bus this morning listening to Bill Stewart drumming and thinking about this thread. It occured to me that one of the things that is distinctly different in jazz than it is in most other forms of popular music is the use of implication over statement. This is, as always, not an absolute but I'll try and explain what I mean. What I am referring to is a range of things really. Firstly, the time pulse. With many performances, the momentum of a jazz performance is not created by repetition in one area of the music. In, say, Funk, the bass lines can be repetitive, or the drum part, or the rhythm guitar or, sometimes, all three. In jazz, it is less likely that the pulse is actually stated for any significant length of time by one instrument. Riffs are implied, not stated, they are toyed with not just repeated. Chords are changed and substituted each time they are played, Melodies are twisted and realigned with the pulse, harmonies altered and altered again. Improvisations can be thematic and use the core of a compositions themes as a launching pad but rarely are these themes actually stated outside of the head. In rock, Metal, Folk, Pop etc the bass often plays and plays around the root note and or chord tones. Jazz bass playing does do this but it also tends to provide more of a counterpoint, changing its emphasis note by note, phrase by phrase, bar by bar. So, when you are listening to jazz, you need to kind of put that pulse in for yourself, define the core harmonies, themes etc and keep these in mind so that you can hear what is going on. Take any jazz standard that you know the melody of (e.g. My Favourite Things) and then listen to the performance whilst keeping that melody going in your head. As the players take it away from the familiar theme, you will be able to hear a relationship between the tune you know and the solo. One of my favourite things to hear is when a drummer uses the rhythmic phrasing of a melody to construct his drum solo. What previously sounded random thrashing, suddenly sounds totally logical. Eventually, you will be able to do this having only heard the main themes once and then you will really get a sense of what it is all about. What it is not is randon noodling. You have no idea how much it irritates me when people mention random noodling in connection with jazz. I keep a list.

[quote name='The Funk' post='327808' date='Nov 12 2008, 06:03 PM']That song is so hard to play well. I've never played a good version - only train wrecks.[/quote] Its a 'less is more' tune. Just play the roots and let the harmonies speak for themselves. Give the notes space to breath.

[quote name='dangerboy' post='327668' date='Nov 12 2008, 02:59 PM']What if you like listening to some jazz, dislike listening to some other jazz, but find jazz musicians, fans and students almost universally tedious and self-regarding? Obviously that's not unique to jazz, but they really do write the manual from which other musical bores learn.[/quote] With respect, DB, and this isn' t particularly directed at you, I find it ironic that so many non-jazz musicians refer to us as tedious and self-regarding (or something of that nature) but then go and rave about musicians who write songs with what they consider to be really important messages about 'life' or 'the streets', who are millionaires who drive around in limos or flash cars, stay in hotels that the rest of us couldn't even work in never mind stay at, attend celebrity dos, appear on posters, badges and t-shirts and spend the remainder of their time generally being pampered by the endlessly sychophantic. Personally, give me a man or woman who just wants to play their instrument really well anytime.

Wayne and Jimmy Johnson (no relation) in the Wayne Johnson Trio. Allan Holdsworth and Jeff Berlin on 'Road Games' - the last decent thing JB did. John Scofield and Steve Swallow - play with the same guitarist for 30 years and see how good it sounds! Pat Metheny and Steve Rodby - Rodby is Metheny's nearly silent partner. His reticence is a perfect foil for the guitarist.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with this assessment of 'Giant Steps' but it is not alone. A lot of music is composed using 'artificial' stimulae e.g. tone rows are an obvious example but there are loads of other ways music has been created. Kenny Wheeler sometimes writes things and them flips them over and makes a musical palindrome. Gil Goldstein talks in his book on Jazz composing about using a skyline, for example, to inform a sequence of notes. Barrington Pheulong used the Morse code for Morse when determining the themn for the tv programme and has admitted to doing things like using the name of the murderer to inform the sequence of notes that forms the incidental themes in odd episodes. Classical composers have used church bells and marching soldiers, birdsong and 1,000 other things. Blues musicians have used train whistles. Isn't the opening theme of 'Tubular Bells' something classical played backwards. You finds your inspiration where you finds it!

[quote name='ianrunci' post='327628' date='Nov 12 2008, 02:25 PM']Don't know why everyone slags off Mustang Sally, its a classic soul tune by a classic soul singer.[/quote] Because I hear it every time I leave the house. It stopped being boring a long time ago. Then it got irritating. Now its like fingernails on a blackboard. Don't anyone play it again, please. Ever.

[url="http://www.jazzstandards.com/compositions/index.htm"]http://www.jazzstandards.com/compositions/index.htm[/url] Useful resource for anyone looking to know a bit more about the standards that feature so heavily in jazz.

[quote name='Exile252' post='327249' date='Nov 12 2008, 03:13 AM']I was thinking, the only Jazz song I really enjoyed listening to was a Jazz cover of Smells Like Teen Spirit. They had the improvising sections, but they also had a base to which they were working from, and didn't go off on weird solo tangents like they were not listening to the rest of the band.[/quote] That sucked. Big time.

[quote name='Lfalex v1.1' post='326890' date='Nov 11 2008, 03:58 PM']Is there an unwitting plug by Tolkien for a cerain brand of US bass cabs and subwoofers in that there address? Do Hobbits play short-scale basses, then?[/quote] No - its a unwitting plug for Tolkien by a certain brand of US cabs and subwoofers. Hobbits didn't have electricty. The just played halfling double basses, called single basses.

[quote name='Wil' post='326774' date='Nov 11 2008, 02:23 PM']Yeah, I don't think he was ever truely down and out. I think he did sleep in a "spike" in England and work as a dishwasher in Paris due to changing circustances, though. Coincidently, Down and Out in Paris and London is my favourite book of all time [/quote] My second favourite after 'The Hobbit'

[quote name='Jebo1' post='326695' date='Nov 11 2008, 12:59 PM']You can teach someone to play a 12 bar walking line in a few minutes that would, with some improvisation, see them through your most general of jazz forms.[/quote] Minutes to learn and a lifetime to master - what's wrong with that? [quote]... if you think that a heroin addicted Charlie Parker was planning all those substitutions, or a drunk Django was playing freely whilst calculating the changes you're a fool![/quote] The difference between a heroin addict and a non-heroin addict is the need for heroin, not the ability to think. Parker was considered to be a highly intelligent man by many who knew him. His knowledge of harmony was very advanced but his ability to function in the conventional sense was poor. Like a lot of people with that kind of focus, they are actually quite dysfunctional - I have often wondered whether Charlie Parker had Asperger's or some other autistic condition. Geroge Orwell lived rough for some time before he wrote 1984 and Animal Farm. Aleister Crowley and William S. Burroughs both used H at one time or another. The world is full of creative, intelligent people who have got hooked. As for intelligent alcoholics, where do I start...???

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='326629' date='Nov 11 2008, 11:44 AM']Jazz fans do as much damage to the genre as the music itself. You guys seem to think that there are 2 groups or people: Those who like Jazz and those that don't understand it. Wrong! There are those that (probably pretend) to like it and those that think it's utter sh*t. I'm told you can't dismiss an entire genre. But I've yet to hear a jazz song I like. I'm not getting any younger, and I just don't have time to invest in music I need to force myself to like just so I can wear a blazer over a roll-neck sweater. Its the musical equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome. You fellas have spent a long time trying to like this stuff, that you have somehow fallen in love with it. It reminds me of those annoying f***ers who recommend a film (usually something sh*t like The Beach or Fight Club). When you tell them that it was f***ing sh*t, they say"well you clearly didn't understand it". Yes I f***ing did, and I also understand that your opinion isn't worth sh*t! Most improvisation is bollocks. Improvise when writing the thing, pick the best version, and there you go, you've got your song. Quite frankly, I couldn't care what mood you're in when you play it live.[/quote] Ignoring the 87.6 generalisations you make in your post , you have to understand that music is just a thing and, like all things, is used by different people for different purposes. If you want to dance, Stravinsky is probably not going to work for you. If you want to chill, it is unlikely that you will be using Motorhead. If you want background noise, a bit of bland musak is the thing but if you want to stir some patriotic feelings in people, you get out the Elgar. Every piece of music requires something different from the listener. Same with the films you refer to. If you want mindless drivel, Indiana Jones is the man. If you want something intellectually stimulating, try something else (don't I ask mem, I liek my movies 'lightweight'). If you abhor violence, the Saw movies are a no go but, if films with animals in turn you off, then Babe is going to really get on your thrupennys. If someone recommends something, you need to decide what they are actually recommending and why rather than simply the title of the specific product (If I hear one more person say their favourite film is 'THe Shawshank Redemption', I will spit). There is s*** jazz out there (I've played hundreds of hours of it myself) but it is a high risk undertaking and that is going to happen. You aren't going to see the solos off the records, the pieces will change, the feelings that each piece creates in the listener will change everytime - that is what makes it attractive to me; ' the sound of surprise. The problem I have with most other genres is that hearing a tune played pretty much the same way everytime, using tired old cliches, is unstimulating - like reading books or watching films with the same plot over and over again. Watching angry young men (and it is mostly men) trashing their instruments and ranting about the things they care about doesn't do it for me (it did when I was 16 but no more). Straight drum beats leave me cold. Repetetive chord sequences are tired, repetetive anything is uninteresting especially repetetive set lists!- and what are 'choruses' for? repeat until hacked off?; 'yeah, you did that already, now do something else. Please!'. And as for covers bands - I HEARD IT ALREADY!!! I am passionate about jazz because it holds my attention where other musics don't; simple as. After 20+ years of playing to tiny little audiences, I know its not popular. There are more bad jazz musicians than bad rock musicians and I have played with half of them; they are bad because they don't work hard enough on what is a very difficult music to play well. That is a self fulfilling prophecy - bad musician = bad gig = disatisfied audience = people slagging off jazz = low audience levels = fewer gigs = less reasons to practice = bad musician = bad gig etc etc. But this is the bottom line for me; a neatly polished version of Mustang Sally is NOT better than bad jazz, not because it is not good, because it is not professional, not tight, not well delivered etc. It is not better because I know what's coming and don't care! I prefer jazz simply because I don't know what's coming! Not because it is difficult, elitist, 'classy', sophisticated or makes me look hard but because it keeps moving. I learned to like it organically; not by deciding one day to 'like' it, but by moving from one musician I liked to another and another and another. I 'get it' because I kept looking at it and listening to it because it excited me and warranted close attention, not so I could win at a pub quiz. Like you, BBC, I am not getting any younger but I have no time to waste listening to MORE variations of the same tired old cliches that form the basis of 95% of popular music. But that's just me

[quote name='waynepunkdude' post='326533' date='Nov 11 2008, 09:43 AM']I think Jazz as an art form takes itself WAY too seriously, I'm sure there is a place for that it's just not for me.[/quote] That could apply to any one of 100 genres - was Morrisey in it for a laugh? Leonard Cohen? Johnny Cash? Kraftwerk? Manic Street Preachers? 98% of HM? Jazz is absolutely chock full of humour but, as bit like my earlier post, if you don't get the language the humour is presented in, you'll miss it.

[quote name='Oscar South' date='Nov 10 2008, 10:04 PM' post='326337'] I think that's a pretty misguided comment, I love, listen to, play and study jazz and I certainly understand it. I also understand and enjoy many other genres equally as much, there is as much beauty in simplicity as there is in complexity, just because something is more difficult (on any level) does not make it by nature better. [/quote No argument - jazz can be simple too! Levels of 'difficulty' are irrelevant - my comment was just an observation that many musicians don't do the total listening thing, whether they are supposed to or not. It's depth that matters. Many other genres can be deep too, I have no problem acknowledging that, but most of the stuff I listened to before I got into jazz (rock, HM & prog. rock) doesn't work for me any more. It's just not very satisfying. As for players enjoying themselves more than audiences... have you ever WATtCHED any mainstream pop bands, They do like themselves, don't they

I have never heard anything by Stanley Clarke that I like. I have heard him ON things I like (early Return to Forever) but his own solo stuff leaves me cold - always has. Electric or double bass - he frequently disappoints.

Absolutely - the whole jam band think is probably accurately called jazz rock or jazz funk - using the language of rock or funk to inform your improvisations rather than the language of jazz; the process is essentialy the same and the potential for creative playing is equally high (as is the chance of falling on your a***). Early jazz rock bnads were really creative; the life-blood got sucked out of it all by some of the more commercial Kenny G, Crusaders, David Sanborn kind of material. But Medeski, Martin & Wood et al can be marvelous.