GOD.... I LOVE JAZZ

[Doddy]

[quote name='lowdown' post='1220142' date='May 4 2011, 07:01 PM']Must admit my iPod is full of Gordon Goodwin's Big Phat Band at the moment - some stonking playing.[/quote]

I love the Big Phat Band immensely.

PeteinKent..... Nowhere in his reply did Bassace say anything negative about rock or pop.All he said was that if you know what you are doing you will be a better musician and get more out of it.I don't care if you are playing rock,jazz,pop or what,it's true. No one is saying anything bad about rock music or it's fans-they are just saying how much they love jazz and turning others on to some new stuff. The only 'elitism' in this thread,as far as I can see, is coming from your last couple of posts.

[Hector]

[quote name='PeteinKent' post='1220140' date='May 4 2011, 06:59 PM']A more typical and certainly more insidious Jazz reply.....What you are implying is that I am simply not a gifted enough musician to understand the technical requirements and the complexities of jazz music. This attitude towards rock/pop musicians almost always goes hand in hand with 'the only reason any musician would not play jazz is because they can't'.

Just because a piece of music is technically difficult to play and/or is very complex does not make it engaging on any level to many, if not most, listeners. Often it is quite the opposite.

The Jazz fraternity is openly and triumphantly elitist and yet it bristles at the merest hint of criticism particularly from a pop/rock musician because it detests the popular acclaim given to these musicians because of the accessibility of the music they play. It is at the same time spitefully scathing about the musical hoi polloi who are not 'smart' enough appreciate the nuances of the genre and yet at the same time it cries like a baby because it isn't more loved.

Well boys and girls of the jazz world....you simply cant be exclusive and popular at the same time.

If the Jazzers want to sit in darkened,smokey rooms, tapping their sandled feet and stroking their goatee beards,(and thats just the women!), whilst they impress each other with tuneless noodling thats fine. But they can't be content with that! They have to come into my room where there are I am playing to a host of people who are dancing, singing and, in the words of the late great Lowell George...'Having a time' and call me a musical amoeba because I am playing popular music to the masses.

Well I have one thing to say to that and it starts with a B and ends in ollox!

Right now I'm off to play a gig.[/quote]

Not quite sure why you've decided to post in this thread? I mean, the topic title makes it clear what the content is gonna be. None of us really care if you have some chip on your shoulder about Jazz, it's your loss. (And by the way, for someone who seems to avoid Jazz like the plague, you seem to know an awful lot about it and the mindset of people who are into it - opinions not based on actual experience or familiarity?).

Edited May 4, 2011 by Hector

[lettsguitars]

as a non reader, i am realising that reading, or at least having a good understanding of the theory of music is absolutely necessary to achieve the upmost level of musicianship. it's the only way you can play a tune (well) with a band without ever hearing it. wasted many years playing by ear. time to hit the books. jazz me up.

[PeteinKent]

[quote name='lowdown' post='1220142' date='May 4 2011, 07:01 PM']Dedicated to you Pete.




Must admit my iPod is full of Gordon Goodwin's Big Phat Band at the moment - some stonking playing.




Garry[/quote]

Thanks Gary....I really enjoyed these and I shall explore more .

Pete

[PeteinKent]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1220354' date='May 4 2011, 10:20 PM']I love the Big Phat Band immensely.

PeteinKent..... Nowhere in his reply did Bassace say anything negative about rock or pop.All he said was that if you know what you are doing you will be a better musician and get more out of it.I don't care if you are playing rock,jazz,pop or what,it's true. No one is saying anything bad about rock music or it's fans-they are just saying how much they love jazz and turning others on to some new stuff. The only 'elitism' in this thread,as far as I can see, is coming from your last couple of posts.[/quote]

But the inference was that if you are a rock/pop musician you 'don't' know what you are doing or, at the very least you don't know as much as jazz musicians.

If you genuinely believe that I am in any way elitist simply because I have suggested that jazz musicians are elitist then I truly don't know how to respond. Are you saying that there is no exclusivity/ elitism in jazz? Do you not accept that many, (if not most), jazz musicians consider themselves to be superior to rock/pop musicians?

[Doddy]

[quote name='PeteinKent' post='1220513' date='May 5 2011, 02:00 AM']But the inference was that if you are a rock/pop musician you 'don't' know what you are doing or, at the very least you don't know as much as jazz musicians.[/quote]
No...the quote was suggesting that any musician,regardless of genre,would be better for learning more about music.

[quote name='PeteinKent' post='1220513' date='May 5 2011, 02:00 AM']If you genuinely believe that I am in any way elitist simply because I have suggested that jazz musicians are elitist then I truly don't know how to respond. Are you saying that there is no exclusivity/ elitism in jazz? Do you not accept that many, (if not most), jazz musicians consider themselves to be superior to rock/pop musicians?[/quote]

Nowhere in this thread has anyone said anything about jazz musicians being 'superior' players to rock musicians until your posts.You claim
that jazz musicians 'want to be elitist' and are jealous of pop/rock musicians because you are playing to a room full of people dancing. Isn't
that just another way of saying that what you play is 'better' because people are dancing to the music and therefor slightly elitist?
The fact is a good musician is a good musician whatever genre they favour.
I don't accept that many (if not most) jazz musicians consider themselves superior to rock/pop musicians either.Again every area of music
has people with an attitude-Original bands think they are better than cover bands,Guitar players think they are better than Bass players...
it always happens. I will say though,that most of my favourite musicians have had some degree of Jazz education.

[PeteinKent]

[quote name='Hector' post='1220434' date='May 4 2011, 11:33 PM']Not quite sure why you've decided to post in this thread? I mean, the topic title makes it clear what the content is gonna be. None of us really care if you have some chip on your shoulder about Jazz, it's your loss. (And by the way, for someone who seems to avoid Jazz like the plague, you seem to know an awful lot about it and the mindset of people who are into it - opinions not based on actual experience or familiarity?).[/quote]


Of course it's the 'none of us' phrase that really gives it all away here. You are not one of our fraternity so therefore how do you have the temerity to criticise us?

Plus its the very fact that I have no chip on my shoulder about any form of music that is the hub of my posts. Each to their own, plus support every musician /band as long as they play with sincerity and passion and are not being dismissive about what they are playing or their audience.

And as for 'avoiding jazz like the plague'..this is simply untrue. Even now when I encounter any form of jazz music I listen with with expectation and hope but often the experience is degraded by the attitude of the musicians and audience if and when I inform them conversationally that I am a pop/rock musician.

There is some jazz music I absolutely love as there is country/punk/reggae/world music I love. But only jazz makes this difficult...you are either in or you are out.

To reiterate the opening line from my original post...'I have nothing against jazz per se'. I just find the attitude of the jazz fraternity often very abrasive if not downright unpleasant.

Is there really any jazz musician on here who wants to claim that jazz is 'inclusive' ?

[lettsguitars]

ok. just listening to some mingus. on which advert have i heard the sax from moanin? and why is this allowed?

[PeteinKent]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1220516' date='May 5 2011, 02:26 AM']No...the quote was suggesting that any musician,regardless of genre,would be better for learning more about music.



Nowhere in this thread has anyone said anything about jazz musicians being 'superior' players to rock musicians until your posts.You claim
that jazz musicians 'want to be elitist' and are jealous of pop/rock musicians because you are playing to a room full of people dancing. Isn't
that just another way of saying that what you play is 'better' because people are dancing to the music and therefor slightly elitist?
The fact is a good musician is a good musician whatever genre they favour.
I don't accept that many (if not most) jazz musicians consider themselves superior to rock/pop musicians either.Again every area of music
has people with an attitude-Original bands think they are better than cover bands,Guitar players think they are better than Bass players...
it always happens. I will say though,that most of my favourite musicians have had some degree of Jazz education.[/quote]

Absolutely not... what I am saying is that I play with sincerity, passion and skill and, mostly, as long as the audience is happy then I am happy. I would never suggest to a jazz, folk, brass band or klezmer musician that I am in any way superior to them but it is un-realistic for the jazz fraternity to suggest that they do not consider themselves to be a cut above the rest of us. Or are you going to suggest otherwise?

[lettsguitars]

[quote name='PeteinKent' post='1220526' date='May 5 2011, 03:10 AM']Absolutely not... what I am saying is that I play with sincerity, passion and skill and, mostly, as long as the audience is happy then I am happy. I would never suggest to a jazz, folk, brass band or klezmer musician that I am in any way superior to them but it is un-realistic for the jazz fraternity to suggest that they do not consider themselves to be a cut above the rest of us. Or are you going to suggest otherwise?[/quote]
i think being a 'musician' by todays standards is not really the same as it was in the time of the appearance of jazz. modern music is less dependant on knowledge of melody and harmony. 3 chords'll do. the folk who carry on the old school methods are always going to be 'superior' musicians.

[TomKent]

[quote name='lettsguitars' post='1220529' date='May 5 2011, 03:20 AM']i think being a 'musician' by todays standards is not really the same as it was in the time of the appearance of jazz. modern music is less dependant on knowledge of melody and harmony. 3 chords'll do. the folk who carry on the old school methods are always going to be 'superior' musicians.[/quote]

Coltrane vs Green Day
Miles Davis vs Ellie Goulding

Not really comparable because well.. the new artists either use 3 chords or don't write the songs at all.

Jazz musicians are known to be the more 'in the know' musicians, noting that any of the jazzers I play with write the best charts and well.. the rest of us don't quite hit the spot.

[lettsguitars]

[quote name='TomKent' post='1220535' date='May 5 2011, 03:52 AM']Coltrane vs Green Day
Miles Davis vs Ellie Goulding

Not really comparable because well.. the new artists either use 3 chords or don't write the songs at all.

Jazz musicians are known to be the more 'in the know' musicians, noting that any of the jazzers I play with write the best charts and well.. the rest of us don't quite hit the spot.[/quote]
quite right. i'm the first to admit, though i right/right? write some great songs, they would be far better with a little more musical insight.

edit; who needs to spell anyway. i can't even write english nevermind music.

Edited May 5, 2011 by lettsguitars

[Hector]

Does anyone else read A Blog Supreme? Awesome post turned up there recently:

[url="http://www.npr.org/blogs/ablogsupreme/2011/05/04/135989797/the-jazz-fan-who-built-a-machine-to-make-his-own-mashups#more"]Acknowledgement Remixed[/url]

[Bilbo]

F*** it - its my thread so I can say what I want (health warning: I am being deliberately provocative and should in no way be taken seriously ).

In my entirely irrelevant opinion, Jazz is 'better' because, in the main, it is infinitely more nuanced than most pop/rock. Most jazz musicians can (and often do) play pop/rock, either out of financial necessity or because they quite like it, whilst most pop/rock musicians don't or can't play jazz. Doesn't that tell you something about the skill sets required? Most jazz musicians have gone through rock/pop etc and moved on because they are bored of the same old same old. the endless repetition, the tedious three chord songs, the two dimensional arrangements, the plaguiarism, the tedious backbeat, the leaden bass drum (all beat and no groove), the lack of dynamic range. Most rock/pop musicians have never played jazz so can't really shed any light on what makes it tick other than to winge about us elitists. Jazz' main failing, in terms of audience, is its immediacy or lack of. Takes a little time to get past first base. But that applies to most stuff that is not on the mainstream radio/tv channels and isn't experienced by osmosis before being actively sought out.

This is all, however, completely irrelevant. The point that was made was that you have to be a musician to love it. You don't. You just have to like the noise it makes. You don't have to understand how to produce CGI to enjoy Avatar, you just watch it and form a view. You don't need to know jazz theory to like Sketches of Spain. Just listen to it. Its not great because its hard, its great because its beautiful. But making something that beautiful is hard.

And as for dancers? Its all about context. Play Glenn Miller to a room full of old folk who lived through WWII. They'll dance.

[LukeFRC]

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1220652' date='May 5 2011, 09:32 AM']F*** it - its my thread so I can say what I want (health warning: I am being deliberately provocative and should in no way be taken seriously ).

In my entirely irrelevant opinion, Jazz is 'better' because, in the main, it is infinitely more nuanced than most pop/rock. Most jazz musicians can (and often do) play pop/rock, either out of financial necessity or because they quite like it, whilst most pop/rock musicians don't or can't play jazz. Doesn't that tell you something about the skill sets required? Most jazz musicians have gone through rock/pop etc and moved on because they are bored of the same old same old. the endless repetition, the tedious three chord songs, the two dimensional arrangements, the plaguiarism, the tedious backbeat, the leaden bass drum (all beat and no groove), the lack of dynamic range. Most rock/pop musicians have never played jazz so can't really shed any light on what makes it tick other than to winge about us elitists. Jazz' main failing, in terms of audience, is its immediacy or lack of. Takes a little time to get past first base. But that applies to most stuff that is not on the mainstream radio/tv channels and isn't experienced by osmosis before being actively sought out.

This is all, however, completely irrelevant. The point that was made was that you have to be a musician to love it. You don't. You just have to like the noise it makes. You don't have to understand how to produce CGI to enjoy Avatar, you just watch it and form a view. You don't need to know jazz theory to like Sketches of Spain. Just listen to it. Its not great because its hard, its great because its beautiful. But making something that beautiful is hard.

And as for dancers? Its all about context. Play Glenn Miller to a room full of old folk who lived through WWII. They'll dance.[/quote]


as my first post about jazz and the first one in this thread.
It's a bit like contemporary art.

But this morning I am sat on my computer working and stuck sketches of spain on.
I have no idea whats going on but i love it.
that is all, thank you.

[Earbrass]

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1220652' date='May 5 2011, 09:32 AM'](health warning: I am being deliberately provocative and should in no way be taken seriously ).[/quote]

...provocative but scarily accurate

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1220652' date='May 5 2011, 09:32 AM']You don't need to know jazz theory to like Sketches of Spain. Just listen to it. Its not great because its hard, its great because its beautiful. But making something that beautiful is hard.[/quote]

Superbly put. (And I'm not even that big a jazz fan)

Bilbo for king!

[Doddy]

[quote name='PeteinKent' post='1220526' date='May 5 2011, 03:10 AM']Absolutely not... what I am saying is that I play with sincerity, passion and skill and, mostly, as long as the audience is happy then I am happy. I would never suggest to a jazz, folk, brass band or klezmer musician that I am in any way superior to them but it is un-realistic for the jazz fraternity to suggest that they do not consider themselves to be a cut above the rest of us. Or are you going to suggest otherwise?[/quote]

Yes, I'm going to suggest otherwise. You seem to have the opinion that all jazz musicians think that they are better than everyone else- I'm sorry,but it's complete bullshit. The fact that you are making the distinction between 'the jazz fraternity' and 'the rest of us' seems to me that you've had a run in with a jazz player and have got a chip on your shoulder about it. Like I said earlier,a good musician is a good musician regardless of genre.
I will say though,that although the majority of my gigs are in the rock/pop/funk scene,studying and playing jazz has seriously improved me as a musician way more than studying rock and pop.

[derrenleepoole]

Without getting into an argument, every form of music has it's good players and bad players, and jazz is certainly no exception. To argue that jazz is better artistically because on the whole it requires more 'skill' is bunkum! There are many unskilled performers out there who play jazz, and many are admired and do make a career for themselves, whether we like it or not. Likewise can be said of other musical genres too.

Bilbo, you sort of remind me of me when I was 16 listening to death metal music . I had the attitude that 'my' music was the 'only' music that counted, and like all teenagers sought out clans of individuals who aspired to the same musical tastes and musical conclusions that inspired me. Over time, I've learned to appreciate all facets of music, right across the whole musical spectrum. Jazz is by far the most music I now listen to, but I've learned not to be so judgmental of other forms of music simply because it isn't jazz. I draw just as much enjoyment from folk, as I do bluegrass or rock or experimental electronic music.

Do you think Miles Davis would of been so influential if he hadn't embraced other genres such as funk or rock? By your arguments and reasoning, this lesser form of music isn't skilled enough, yet Miles certainly found inspiration from it! If it's good enough for Miles, it's good enough for everyone

[derrenleepoole]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1220769' date='May 5 2011, 10:56 AM']Like I said earlier,a good musician is a good musician regardless of genre.[/quote]

+1 - I couldn't agree with this statement more

[PeteinKent]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1220769' date='May 5 2011, 10:56 AM']Yes, I'm going to suggest otherwise. You seem to have the opinion that all jazz musicians think that they are better than everyone else- I'm sorry,but it's complete bullshit. The fact that you are making the distinction between 'the jazz fraternity' and 'the rest of us' seems to me that you've had a run in with a jazz player and have got a chip on your shoulder about it. Like I said earlier,a good musician is a good musician regardless of genre.
I will say though,that although the majority of my gigs are in the rock/pop/funk scene,studying and playing jazz has seriously improved me as a musician way more than studying rock and pop.[/quote]

The last sentence of your above posting just emphasises the point I have been making.

Also I am nearly 52 years old , I got my first bass when I was 14 and I have been gigging regularly since I was 18. Over that 37 plus year period I have worked with dozens of jazz players and met and talked to dozens more and the vast majority of them go from being mildly patronising to downright withering about all over styles of music but rock/pop in particular. So, unless I have been quite spectacularly unlucky, its not bullshit son!

[Skol303]

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1220652' date='May 5 2011, 09:32 AM']Jazz' main failing, in terms of audience, is its immediacy or lack of. Takes a little time to get past first base. But that applies to most stuff that is not on the mainstream radio/tv channels...

...Its not great because its hard, its great because its beautiful. But making something that beautiful is hard."[/quote]

^ Good points well put.

I suggested myself that jazz is "music for musicians", but on reflection I suppose the same could be said of many other forms of music that aren't in the mainstream ear. For example: turntablist DJs in hip hop; the "intelligent" drum 'n' bass genre; technical death metal; opera and classical, etc. All of these music forms require a different skillset to that of their more mainstream counterparts. In most cases the skills involved are more difficult and do take longer to master. And perhaps for these reasons, many of these genres also suffer from the same "chin-stroking" stereotype as jazz...

Jazz certainly isn't mainstream and neither is it immediately accessible to most listeners or even musicians themselves. But that doesn't make it elitist by default.

I think what's fueling the fire of this argument is: on one side, people saying "you jazz guys think you're so great, but try filling my dancefloor on a Saturday night!" vs people on the other side saying "well you're on the wrong dancefloor, pal, but while we're at it I believe my chops are in fact better than yours!"

Both sides are perhaps correct to some degree: jazz really isn't the music of choice for mainstream audiences; and jazz really does require a certain level of technical proficiency to play it well - arguably more so than rock/pop.

So in short: both sides of this debate could be accused of elitism to some extent, as both sides are arguing in favour of their genre on the grounds of it being 'better' than the other (albeit for different reasons).

The net result? Country & Western beats all! I win :-)

[Bilbo]

You're being reasonable, Derren. I can't argue with the core principles of what you say because all of this is subjective but I am not here to defend everything else, be that other genres or crap jazz musicians, I am advocating for Jazz as an art form. I have played rock/metal, funk, pop, reggae, shows etc and can do most of it standing on my head (extreme stunt musicians, atheletes and jugglers excepted). I have not played classical as there is no repertoire for electric bass but I have no doubt that some of it is easy and some of it really hard. But, on a balance of competences, in my experience, playing great jazz is a s***load harder to do that playing the other genres I have explored. THis is as much to do with the fact that most modern genres are based on repetition - a two bar riff played again and again (or, in the case of Higher and Higher, for teh whole song). I work at being a jazz musician it because I love the results, increasingly better jazz, not just because it is hard. The improvisational element is particularly tricky to master. If it was all about doing hard stuff because it is hard, I would be up there at the front at Wooten gigs with the rest of 'em but that stuff is hard but not beautiful. Great funk bass lines like 'Good Times' are all well and good but the music it underpins is mostly, to my ears, bubblegum. Great bass lines like 'Shy Boy' are all well and good but the music it underpins is adolescent drivel. Even Rush, who I used to adore; great bass lines but, overall, the results are a bit clumsy and, in many ways, quite immature. Peart, the drummers drummer everone votes for every year, is a thug compared to the greatest jazz drummers.

The finesse required to play the best jazz is, on almost every instrument, way beyond what most people are able to achieve - jazz musicians have expanded the potential of almost every instrument available. The work required to operate at the highest level is prohibitive to many - those who think that success is measured in the size of the paycheque vs time spent practising - but, as John Lewis says, the music is its own reward. Once you understand that, its is difficult to accept the idea that playing rock and pop etc is in any way comparable. Of course, the quality of the results is, in many ways, subjective but, in others, it is less so. Just like literature: some may prefer Shakespeare to Dickens or Wordsworth to e. e cummings but few would argue that Jeffrey Archer is the king of the hill. Some think 'its all good', I don't. Some of it bores me as a player and as a listener. Some of it doesn't and that is the stuff I will reserve praise for.

[Doddy]

[quote name='PeteinKent' post='1220814' date='May 5 2011, 11:24 AM']The last sentence of your above posting just emphasises the point I have been making.[/quote]
Errrr...how?

I merely stated that studying jazz had improved [i]me[/i] as a musician. How does that emphasise your point?
All it says is that by studying and playing jazz,I improved as a musician,I never said that by studying jazz I was better than
someone who didn't.The fact is,that I learned a lot more things like chord structures and modes and whatever from jazz than
I did from playing pop and rock. Sure,you can learn this away from jazz,but I didn't.


[quote name='PeteinKent' post='1220814' date='May 5 2011, 11:24 AM']Also I am nearly 52 years old , I got my first bass when I was 14 and I have been gigging regularly since I was 18. Over that 37 plus year period I have worked with dozens of jazz players and met and talked to dozens more and the vast majority of them go from being mildly patronising to downright withering about all over styles of music but rock/pop in particular.[/quote]

How long you have been playing is irrelevant to the argument-there are great and knowledgeable musicians who have been playing for a
short time and poor ones that have played for years and vice versa.
I don't know what kind of gigs you've done,but I don't know anyone that doesn't have at least some appreciation for rock
and pop.In fact,pretty much every jazz player I know has done rock and pop gigs. If anything,I know more 'rock' musicians
who are disparaging about other genres.

[quote name='PeteinKent' post='1220814' date='May 5 2011, 11:24 AM']So, unless I have been quite spectacularly unlucky, its not bullshit son![/quote]

Now who's being patronising?

[BottomEndian]

What baffles me is when people somehow draw a distinction between (for example) "jazz" and "rock". Yeah, sure, there is jazz that sure as hell isn't rock, and there's rock that sure as hell isn't jazz... but there's a bucketload of stuff in between, blurring the lines (if you thought there were lines in the first place ) and combining ideas from all over the place. It's all just music.

[Bilbo]

[quote name='derrenleepoole' post='1220780' date='May 5 2011, 11:02 AM']Do you think Miles Davis would of been so influential if he hadn't embraced other genres such as funk or rock? By your arguments and reasoning, this lesser form of music isn't skilled enough, yet Miles certainly found inspiration from it! If it's good enough for Miles, it's good enough for everyone [/quote]

Straight answer is that Miles was influential well before his forays into rock and pop music and that his greatest influences were his Birth of the Cool stuff, his first 'great' quintet (Davis, Coltrane, Garland, Chambers and Jones), his Kind Of Blue Sextet the Davis/Gil Evans series and the second great quintet (Davis, Shorter, Hancock, Carter and Williams). His Bitches Brew influence was considerable but that was as much to do with his established standing in the industry and the fact that he changed to so called rock (BB is so NOT a rock album) [i]at all [/i] not what he actually played. His later pop/funk influenced stuff was not actually that influential at all (and, in any event, how much of it was him and how much his producers?). Miles inspiration, by this time, was financial and he wanted to play in front of big crowds like the rock stars.