Standard Standards

[chris]

Are there collections of "standards" in which the pieces are played in a relatively straightforward, original manner that would be useful as a jazz listener to become more familiar with where their music is coming from?

I am thinking in two ways here. First, of course, are the jazz versions of standards like Coltrane's "My Favorite Things"-- I was telling my daughter that this was an old song and she asked to hear the "original"... which I don't have!

The second is that I often hear people describe a musician's songs as being an outgrowth of standards. So, Parker's "Moose the Mooche" uses the "I Got Rhythm" chord changes, etc...

It seems like it would be useful to have a better exposure to these standards!

[Sundog]

If your looking for vocal collections of standards, may I suggest the Ella Fitzgerald Song Books. This may be as good a place as any to get familiar with the standards of Cole Porter, Rodgers and Hart, Irving Berlin, George and Ira Gershwin, Harold Arlen, Jerome Kern, Johnny Mercer...

If your not vocally inclined check out the "Oscar Peterson Plays..." series. These are fairly instructional if not great performances.

Also two very big thumbs up for the Earl Hines Plays Ellington series. These performances tend to stray a little from the originals, however this is such great music, played so wonderfully that I have to recommend it. Also Monk Plays Ellington and Chico Hamilton With Eric Dolphy playing the Ellington Suite. Of course there's always Ellington!

Also, be sure to buy some late period Lester Young on Verve! Lot's of nice balads and standards. The Johnny Hodges Small Group Sessions from 56-61 currently available from Mosaic, are also outstanding! Hope this helps.

[Harold_Z]

It seems like it would be useful to have a better exposure to these standards!

I think you've hit on one of the main causes for jazz's declining popularity.

I'm in my mid 50's now and when I was growing up the standard tunes that much of the jazz repetoire utilizes were still being heard regularly in a POP - NON JAZZ context. Singers on variety shows (remember them?) were still singing standards and Jukeboxes in diners and bars still had a lot of standards on them. In other words - even though Rock was begining to dominate the radio - there were still plenty of standards to be heard. When I got into jazz - the contrast of hearing the tunes in a jazz context was very appealing and the improvisations made sense because I "knew" many of the tunes already.

Today's listeners face the problem you pointed out - only knowing the tunes in a jazz context and having to seek out and learn a body of work that an older generation had ingrained in them (if they were interested and were listening). I think all this adds up to making jazz a little harder to appreciate for someone growing up in today's pop culture brainwashing dictatorship.

Another related problem - how are you going to recognize the "quotes" players often toss into their solos if you don't know this huge backlog of tunes? The quote goes right past you because you don't know the tune.

Edited June 17, 2003 by Harold_Z

[Ed S]

I think jazz has more problems than recognizing the melodies of "standards". Though I think the point is a valid one. But it's just one of the problems.

I often wonder how many young people dismiss jazz out of hand specifically because they do associate it with standards and an older generation. It takes a long time to appreciate the words and melodies of a standard, especially if you're coming from a rock background. It was not until I was in my 30s that I really began to dig mainstream jazz. Prior to that, I was a fusion head - and I bet there's a lot of jazzers that don't even include fusion as a type of jazz.

That's part of the problem too - jazz elitism and intolerance of the fringes of jazz and modern attempts at fusion. I think the Norah Jones, as well as Diana Krall - even the Pat Metheny Group- are great examples of elitism and intolerance. Instead of either remaining silent because we have nothing good to say, or being constructive in our remarks - we attack and demean some of these artists.

So Norah's not great jazz or may even be more country than jazz. So what? I can't help but wonder how many Norah fans came to the BN website and thought we were a bunch of a-holes for bashing her. I know not everyone did, but enough did to make it uncomfortable for a Norah fan or a potential jazz newbie to never come back. I know this is a tough issue because we are generally more seasoned jazz fans and are discussing amongst ourselves the merits of a Krall or a Jones or Cincotti or Metheny and comparing them to our broader exposure to jazz. I've taken part in those conversations. I mocked Cincotti and I started that Norah's favorite color thing on her fan site. But I also can't help but wonder we are perceived and jazz is perceived among those at the fringes or those testing the waters.

[Ed S]

At the same time I appear to be peaching tolerance, I can't help but wonder how many hear Kenny G, realize he sucks, associate him with jazz, and stop right there.

[Soul Stream]

It seems like it would be useful to have a better exposure to these standards!

I think you've hit on one of the main causes for jazz's declining popularity.

I'm in my mid 50's now and when I was growing up the standard tunes that much of the jazz repetoire utilizes were still being heard regularly in a POP - NON JAZZ context. Singers on variety shows (remember them?) were still singing standards and Jukeboxes in diners and bars still had a lot of standards on them. In other words - even though Rock was begining to dominate the radio - there were still plenty of standards to be heard. When I got into jazz - the contrast of hearing the tunes in a jazz context was very appealing and the improvisations made sense because I "knew" many of the tunes already.

Today's listeners face the problem you pointed out - only knowing the tunes in a jazz context and having to seek out and learn a body of work that an older generation had ingrained in them (if they were interested and were listening). I think all this adds up to making jazz a little harder to appreciate for someone growing up in today's pop culture brainwashing dictatorship.

Another related problem - how are you going to recognize the "quotes" players often toss into their solos if you don't know this huge backlog of tunes? The quote goes right past you because you don't know the tune.

If you've ever sat in a "hip" older black audience and watched a straight ahead jazz band, it's like going to another world. To see people that know the songs, catch the "quotes," and appreciate the musician's take on songs both audience and player are familiar with is something else.... Something I've only experienced one time, but it gave me an opportunity to see how jazz really "worked" in it's heyday. Those days are gone, sadly.

People don't know standards for the most part anymore. That means players too, they weren't raised on them. So, we get a lot of modal...out...stuff that contains very little of the blues feeling that was stadard issue back in the day. Well, I could go on, but.....

Jazz can't be the same because standard songs aren't known. And standard changes are what real jazz is based on.

[chris]

(I don't know how I posted here-- I thought I was in the "recommendations" forum-- maybe an admin could move it?)

Thanks for the suggestions on CDs useful for hearing the standards. I don't know enough to argue about jazz based on standards and new jazz, etc. But I do know that my primary listening interest at this time, jazz from the late 40s-late 60s definitely is based on, borrows from, or quotes the standards, so for this listener, at least, the time is well spent. It's not turning it into a chore, for me, to find a way to more deeply understand the music I love...

[JSngry]

You want to hear standards in their original form? watch a bunch of old movies, musicals especially. They're show tunes, and since you can't go back in time to see the shows on Broadway, the movies serve as the next best thing. Just don't be surprised to find out that a shitload of perinneal jazz favorites were introduced by a cat named Fred Astaire...

Personally, I think that jazz is more than whatever tunes get played. It's a mindset, and ANY musical turf is fair game. Great jazz vehicles) existed before show tunes ruled the roost (Jelly Roll Morton) and after (Ornette). Standards are beautiful things with lasting appeal, but they're not "pop" music anymore, obviously. Gradually they're comng to be viewed as American Art Song, which is cool, just don't anybody scratch their heads as to why the kids can't hang when somebody starts singing "you are the promised kiss of springtime that makes the lonely winter seem long", if you know what I mean.

Hey, I love the standards, truly love them, and consider them fundamental to American culture, past present and future. But jazz doesn't HAVE to have them in order to survive, unless it wants to survive only as a repertoire music. The culture has changed, and so should the music. If trends in pop culture are on a downward spiral (and old fart that I am, OF COURSE I think they are ), it's up to jazz to relate to the tools that are producing such crap and turn them around, to make the proverbial silk purse out of etc. etc. etc. That has been a major factor in the the spirit of the music (and more importanly, it's people) from the git-go, not just in music, but in life.

The more that jazz becomes "about" music-for-music's sake than relating to life in all it's aspects, eternal and temporal alike, the closer it inches towards outright death. The corpse may be gloriously embalmed, but you won't have to worry about it stealing your car anymore. Let the jazz mind come out in whatever fashion it chooses (or is chosen by). We got records, and damn good ones too, so let the past serve it's righful function, which is to inspire, not to suffocate, the present. Classicism, I believe for myself, is best participated in in the abstract.

Edited June 17, 2003 by JSngry

[robviti]

chris,

i applaud your desire to gain a greater undertanding and appreciation of the popular songs that have served as a foundation for much of jazz improvisation. i'd like to encourage you to seek out versions of these tunes that include vocals, rather than instrumentals. trumpeter kenny dorham reportedly said: "I always learn the words to a song. It helps me play the melody." you might try doing a search using the composer's name and look for collections of their songs. cole porter, irving berlin, george and ira gershwin, and other great composers wrote many of the tunes we now consider jazz standards. these collections might not contain the original versions of these songs (many were written in the 20's, 30's, and 40's), but they're pretty close and often less jazzy. if you really want to hear some original versions, check out fred astaire's recordings from the thirties. yes, that fred astaire! believe it or not, astaire was considered a faithful interpreter of american popular song, and he introduced quite a few standards to the public, including the way you look tonight, a fine romance, and let's call the whole thing off. otherwise, i think the ella fitzgerald songbook series already mentioned is a great way to become familiar with this part of the rich heritage of jazz. good luck and good listening!

Edited June 17, 2003 by jazzshrink

[JSngry]

Coltrane's "My Favorite Things"-- I was telling my daughter that this was an old song and she asked to hear the "original"... which I don't have!

That would be found here:

[Soul Stream]

Frank Sinatra usually sticks very close to the melody. His versions of standards are some of the best to learn from.

[Alexander]

I second that last recommendation. I've learned a lot of standards from my Frank Sinatra collection.