Jazz

I have a question for anyone who is more knowledgeable than me. This question is NOT for people who know less than me, though I will still welcome their input. If you know more than me, then you might know the answer to this question. If you know less than me, you still might know the answer, because maybe you know more than me in this specific area, while I might know more than you in other areas. In fact, just ignore this whole last paragraph. This question is actually for everybody, because I actually don't know that much anyway. If you are still reading this paragraph, you must be a really, really, honestly and quite nicely patient person. Anyway, in my next paragraph, I'm going to ask the question. This is the paragraph where I ask my question. Was the Nat King Cole Trio waaaay ahead of their time, or are they indicative of an early 40's small ensemble movement that I'm unaware of? I always assumed that the straight ahead movement in the 50's was a development of bop but now I'm not sure after hearing Cole's trio who recorded pretty much smack dab in the middle of the bop era. Anyways, I hope this question isn't obtuse. Or acute or reflex or straight or right. Are you typing your answer yet? I'll just be waiting.

Wow it's starting to feel like Alice In Wonderland what with all the birthdays. Hey, where's the forum feature that shows whose UN-birthday it is?

Happy Birthday to you!

Happy Merry B-day!!

Hey does anyone remember Infocom? I love Infocom games...

I've been absent so long! My best friend just left for AIT tonight, and I'm a little sad. I probably won't be around for another week or so, but maybe after then I'll be able to post a little more. I started this thread to say happy birthday to Jazzmoose, jmjk, and tonym! Lotta birthdays around here, sheesh. Anyways, didn't want you birthday boys to think I didn't care.

I've got to go soon, so this will be my last reply. I just wanted to thank you for putting it into simple words for me! You nailed it on the head I think, what I was trying to say. As for your condition with agreeing with my idea, I would issue this challenge: How many of those Jazz musicians listened to a crazily wide range of music, even if they only played a few certain styles? I honestly don't know the answer to this question, but if you give me specific examples of Jazz musicians who only listened to the styles they played and still made brilliant developments I will be forced to consider this point of view at length (your assertion doesn't seem unreasonable to me, you've made me pretty curious!). Okay, I'm off pretty soon. C-ya guys on the flipside!

ARRGH, Clinton! I just got finished with my last post you scoundrel! Okay I'll try to keep it short... You are correct, that IS the formula (craft) part of Jazz and any Jazz musician worth their salt should know it inside and out. The ART part of Jazz is the interaction, the musical conversation that happens in the spur of the moment. I've never heard ANY other kind of music do THAT on the level of sophistication that Jazz does it. That is why I put Jazz on a pedastal. But, actually, I would be relieved to hear some examples of music that have as high a level of interaction as Jazz does, because it would bode much better for the future of music as a whole. So, if you have any examples I would really, REALLY welcome them. Personally I find MOST kinds of music these days to be 90% craft and 10% art. Please do not call me on the percentages and how I come up with them as I am fully being facetious. This is where we will probably always disagree. I do not care if Ornette, Sonny, Coltrane, or anyone else agrees with me. And I stated this in my last post, before you had a chance to read it, but it doesn't take book learning. It takes a LOVE of MUSIC. Anyone who LOVES music is going to want to hear as many kinds of music as are out there, including the modal chorals of the renaissance, fugues, sonatas, symphonies, rock, pop, rap, r&b, folk, folk from other nations such as raga, jigs, polkas, mariachi and chants. They are going to spend concentrated time LISTENING and absorbing. That's all it really takes to understand the tendencies of music. Book learning helps some cats, but it isn't important to know the jargon, it is only important to understand what music is and where it came from. And are we to ask the players to LISTEN before they PLAY? YES!! That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

I apologize. There are some bad things I've noticed about the way I speak about music: 1) It makes me sound pretentious 2) It makes me sound impassioned 3) It is confusing to people who haven't book studied music So, here is an attempt to stop being pretentious, but I don't know how I'll do at it! Since Bach and the Baroque era, certain things became very standard in all western music. You can call these things "rules", but I prefer to call them "tendencies". As in, musicians always tended to do things a certain way. Not EVERYTHING they did, but enough things that you could begin to craft a rule set or a style definition with it. As the styles changed (Baroque to Classical, Classical to Romantic, Romantic to Impressionistic, and then to 20th Century) certain core elements remained ingrained in each style, and have remained in most music since then. This is my assertion and I will always defend it because I believe it is true. My preference then, is music that 1) follows these tendencies 2) adds to this legacy of "tendencies", 3) changes these "tendencies", or 4) PURPOSELY defies these "tendencies". You'll notice that PURPOSELY is in capitals and I'll explain why. Plenty of popular music breaks these tendencies, but half of these musicians aren't even aware that they are doing it! I want to know that I am spending my money on someone's honest effort to make art. If they won't even expend the effort to be aware of how or where their music is splitting off from these tendencies then it is, IMO, not worth my attention. BTW, I am NOT of the opinion that it takes "book learning" to be aware of these tendencies. Plenty of Jazz musicians have proven that. Anyways, that's where I'm coming from, I hope that it clarifies things. I also acknowledge and FULLY admit that I know next to nothing about music. I can talk the talk, but walking the walk is beyond me at the moment. The guys in Organissimo are light years ahead of me (I've heard the bands MP3's and WHEW!). I also know there are other accomplished musicians here. So, then, if there are any cats out there who know what I'm trying to get at and could say it better than me, any help would be MUCH appreciated!

I agree with that to a point. But, lets say, no one's going to try to argue with the fact that most ears tend to hear half steps as leading tones. No one's going to try and argue that most ears don't naturally hear V chords resolving to I. These are the basic building blocks of music. How can anyone make anything new or surprising if they don't first understand the "craft" part of music? How can someone surprise you by frustrating a leading tone or resolving what sounded like a simple chord progression V to some whacked out mode unless they understand how those things have been used before? That's what I'm trying to get at, though many people here could probably make the same point much more articulately.

That's it, yes. There is more to it than that. Listening to a beat from Timbaland or the Neptunes or whomever is more than simple beats. It is about textures, embellishments, etc. How many pop music fans do you know that say jazz sounds the same, when we are able to tell tenor sax players apart on the radio? Doest this 'craft' argument apply to the hardcore scene? Three chords and a bunch of shouting? Pop songs with I-IV-V? Blues with twelve bars? We could say the same thing about some of Morton Feldman's longer works. Just the same phrase over and over, but you KNOW that it is Feldman. To me, the craft is being able to come up with something that sounds distinctive, and this Kelis song does just that. I guess we're just going to have to disagree, Clinton. Although, if you can explain to me what I'm missing in the textures and embellishments I would be willing to think about it. From what I mostly have heard (which I admit is not alot) the arrangements are basically the same and embellishment is either non existent or on a very small scale: As in, "oh he hit that one melody note on the up this time" kind of embellishment. And yes, I think the craft argument applies equally well to all forms of music. If a hardcore song has 3 chords and no melody, guess what? I'm not gonna like it. If they can fit a tiny bit of development in there then I'm on board. I'll give you an example: Rage Against The Machine, especially the first two albums. Sure there was screaming, but there was also a tiny bit of melody (in the distorted guitars) and I thought Zach did a great job building tension in the song (i.e. development) up to the moments where he would let loose. There were also pretty defined roles for each instrument, which is another complaint I have about the rap I've heard. Guess what else? Pop songs with I-IV-V twelve bar are also boring, unless they put something interesting in there. They've been done to death and are still being done to death. This is not to say I don't listen to pop or don't like it. I do, but I don't call it art and I don't compare it with Jazz. Jazz is an art, music like that is a formula (i.e. CRAFT). I don't think it is too much to ask that MUSICIANS learn and understand the CRAFT of music that has preceded them by 600 or more years and at least make passing nods to it. If they are unwilling to do so, then they are insulting that legacy and not taking it seriously. Furthermore, in my view of aesthetics, "distinctiveness" is only one part of what makes something interesting. I don't care if I can tell that it is Joy Division playing unless they have something that is going to musically engage me. "Hey I can tell it's Joy Division playing, but none of their music interests me..." Anyways, it's always fun to get into this discussion. There's always people on both sides of this fence.

Low End Theory didn't quite do it for me. It started off sounding like it was going to be interesting, but I ended up being bored. I'm willing to give it a few more listens before I really decide though... And I'm sorry, no one is going to make the argument that laying down one beat in 4 and repeating it verbatim for 3-5 minutes takes any kind of musical craft. What's the craft, coming up with a 4 beat rhythmic motive that sounds like someone's "style"? At that point, there's not much music happening and more poetry/lyrical emphasis.

AMEN to that! Thanks for saying that B-3er. This is my problem with most POPULAR hip hop that I've heard, which isn't much. The thing about me is, I can actually be pretty forgiving of repetitiveness if I know I'm about to listen to pop music. But come on, four bars for a whole 3-5 minute song? Even with Hip Hop or Rap, all I need to not hate it is to have some kind of development, ANY kind of development with the harmony, and a tiny bit of melody. If they want me to like it though, they have to have decent harmonic progression, melodic development, and some element of the blues doesn't hurt either. Along these lines, I'm actually thinking of getting GURU's first Jazzmatazz. Anyone have any opinions on it? Should I skip it?

I totally agree. Strange the way it works isn't it?

Tough question! Personally, I like the warmest sounds when it comes to Jazz guitar or bass. Archtop Jazz guitars, though electric, have the warmest sound and sound very pretty with acoustic instruments. I guess what I'm trying to say is that as long as an electric instruments tone meshes well with what the ensemble is doing, I'll like it. Or, alternatively, if an electric instrument's tone (bass or otherwise) is making it stick out like a sore thumb, it should be for a reason - it should be fulfilling a different role or doing something creative that will justify it's being singled out - like playing counterpoint to the melody instead of outlining harmonies.

You know, I'd like to second Jerry on the excercise comment. Many times (not all the time) I think that insomnia can be more related to excercise habits than to mental stress or depression. I'm not trying to play down stress-related insomnia, because I've had it worse than most people I know ever had. But, when the stress went away (i.e. - when I quit my horrible job) I still had bad insomnia, and I had it in decreasing amounts for years. Now that I've began to fit some excercise into my schedule I can go to bed and sleep pretty well. Just thought I'd share my personal little experience. Carry on.

Hey man I'm sorry, I used to have monster insomnia and it is no fun.

Thanks AB! I was actually thinking of doing that when I was studying Jazz, but now that I can't play anymore I humbly submit the idea to our gracious hosts.

I think you guys should do a Jazz score set to the video of The Wizard of Oz.

David that's awesome. The place I live in is probably one of the squarest places on the planet. All I ever get from people is "you listen to Jazz!?" and I hear alot of passing comments like the ones above "Jazz is stupid, huhuhuhuh" or "yeah Jazz good for background and stuff". So, I guess I'm a little bitter.

Okay, first of all, Jazz was not "designed". There were no board meetings held among the musicians to vote or take a consensus on what the primary goals and functions of the music should be. Second of all, I will agree that there was a tendency in the Jazz Age (Hot Jazz and Swing Era) to view Jazz as a music to aid social settings - the charleston, swing dancing, and lindy hopping. But I'm pretty sure that the development of Bop and its subsequent offshootings such as straight ahead, modal, fusion, and avant and free styles left that idea behind. Those cats wanted to be payed attention to, and if they didn't I'm a cheese sandwich. Thirdly, I think one of the main problems in our society is that no one wants to deal with the details of things which, in their minds, doesn't directly effect their paycheck. I believe that this world would be a much better place if the people who had the opportunities for knowledge (public libraries and a little bit of time) would learn more about higher math (which would give them a decent, but not expert, understanding about how bridges are constructed), chemistry (which would give them a better, but not expert, understanding about how wine is brewed, and maybe even possibly art (which would give them a better, but not expert, understanding about the purpose of art and why it is made). Fourthly, I used to swing dance, and no, you are quite right, I was not analyzing the music as I did so. Then again, we weren't dancing to Parker, Diz, Monk, Mingus, Trane, MJQ, Art Blakey, Ornette Coleman, or Cecil Taylor.

I only have a few minutes here, so I'll be brief. I understood your argument and acknowledged it. I would like you to explain why you think that Jazz was "designed" to be background music, because my understanding of what Jazz was "designed" for is just the opposite. When someone says that Jazz is "background music", what they mean is "music that is not worth paying attention to".

David, I used to do 4 hours a day of analytical listening to Jazz, (i.e. concentrating on the music and nothing else) and this is what I learned: straight ahead has about a billion things going on in at the same time. Polyrhythms, counterpoint, improvised substitutions - not to mention implied polyrhythms, counterpoint and harmony - spontaneous interaction between any of the members of the rhythm section, spontaneous interaction between the rhythm section and lead instruments, minute tempo fluctuations (playing behind the beat, playing energetically), incredibly precise articulation (swinging, grooving, dynamic accentuation of the melody) and on top of all of that, I knew I wasn't hearing everything that happened and most of it is improvised. You can use Jazz as background music, sure, you can use any kind of music as background, but I gaurantee you that if you spend time concentrating on it, Jazz music will reveal subtleties and complexities that you will not find in any other kind of music. This is why calling Jazz "background music" shows a lack of understanding of what Jazz even is.

It has to do with development. If you are talking to someone who is used to modern rock, what do they get with any of their music? Usually simple AABA, probably 4 to a phrase, all within simple circle of fifths, primary tone melodies, and these days, probably not even any modulations (most modulations in rock are phrase modulations anyway - no gray areas to speak of). The main thing though, is that Jazz tends to have a way, waaaaay longer arc for melodic development. You can't expect someone who is used to hearing the complete musical content in a song stated within the first 20 or 30 seconds to actually understand a melodic arc that is minutes long, improvised, and is not repeated verbatim every phrase...

I think that collectors probably have really driven the life of this music on. Without those guys, there might not be any market to speak of for record companies to even bother putting out any kind of Jazz at all. I wouldn't feel bad at all about being a "high percentage" of collector.