Let's Talk Jazz

Mag · « **on:** 16 Jul 2007, 05:37 pm »

Ok, I was watching the band Bela Fleck on tv last night playing at the Montreal Jazz Festival. From what I can tell they play an improve style where each musician takes a turn at soloing and improv. I have heard other forms of jazz, very little in fact, but generally the improv style is what I understand jazz to be bassed on.
I find this style to be relaxing and I can appreciate the skill and talent of a musician at his instrument. However after listening for about an hour I lose interest. I think this is because I like themed based music and jazz for me lacks direction or purpose. I compare this to me playing on my computer a jam music program, where I can jam and improv and make some pretty cool tunes. But having no musical training there is no way I could repeat what I just played 'cept it be recorded.
This is how I see jazz, without a recording, being that its improv, if they should happen to play an outstanding song. Unless it was recorded, it'll may never be repeated again.
So let's talk Jazz, tell me what it is about jazz, your impression and the purpose if there is one for this style of music.

sts9fan · « **Reply #1 on:** 16 Jul 2007, 05:42 pm »

Is Bela Fleck Jazz? I love them and seen them a few times but I would not have called it jazz. I am not sure what I would call it though.

P.S. imvho Futureman is the worst

R_burke · « **Reply #2 on:** 16 Jul 2007, 05:53 pm »

Bela Fleck and the Flecktones would not be your typical Jazz group. I like them and in my collection I classify them as Bluegrass/Newgrass/Jam Band along with others like String Cheese Incident and Leftover Salmon

There is a lot of improvisation in jazz, but bands like Bela Fleck and the others I mentioned are more Jam Band with a lot of what some refer to as "noodling" which is something that the Grateful Dead were known for - Long extended songs with lots of individual solos and improvisation

ooheadsoo · « **Reply #3 on:** 16 Jul 2007, 06:20 pm »

They are considered jazz and are included in academic jazz classes I have taken as such. The things that tie jazz together are form and in good jazz, theme and variation. It takes skill and experience to pick up on these factors. Without it, it becomes "noodling." In earlier times, it was slightly controversial for jazz artists to be recorded because they didn't want the event to be duplicated. The $$$ factor won.

martyo · « **Reply #4 on:** 16 Jul 2007, 06:45 pm »

I am a huge fan of Bela ,will be seeing them next month. Besides each of them "soloing", quite often 2 of them will play back and forth to each other. I would also agree Futureman is the weak link, but he keeps growing on me over time. I might call the music more fusion but that is probably not it either.

Quote

However after listening for about an hour I lose interest. I think this is because I like themed based music and jazz for me lacks direction or purpose.

I understand what you mean, that is how Phish always struck me and I like jam type bands, there has to be a "melody" somewhere in it, an "internal cohesiveness" if you will. When I first heard Keith Jarrett's Trio, I could appreciate that they were talented and all but I need more. Over time though, I came to hear multiple layers and melodies throughout his music. I hear a "melody" in most of Bela's music too, my wife doesn't though. I need emotion and "story" in my music, technique, regardless of how talented a musician is , is not enough for me either. Alot of Jazz is improvisational but there are also types that are structured.

Quote

This is how I see jazz, without a recording, being that its improv, if they should happen to play an outstanding song. Unless it was recorded, it'll may never be repeated again

You are right about this. For me, that is the magic, playing "in the moment", every night is different.

ooheadsoo · « **Reply #5 on:** 16 Jul 2007, 06:56 pm »

Quote

Quote
This is how I see jazz, without a recording, being that its improv, if they should happen to play an outstanding song. Unless it was recorded, it'll may never be repeated again
You are right about this. For me, that is the magic, playing "in the moment", every night is different.

Another great thing is that you can go see a show night after night and if they're good, you'll hear something organically (musically) related yet different every time. Good improv artists are to be admired.

mjosef · « **Reply #6 on:** 17 Jul 2007, 12:14 am »

That mere act of not repeating the same ole same ole notes is what drew me to jazz...it makes it alive and breathing, always discovering new paths around the same composition. If a band has a weekly gig, you can go every night and never hear the exact same notes played in the same song...its always remaking itself.
By the way, there is a lot of music being called 'jazz' nowadays... A lot of the Jazz Festival around the world has incorporated pop/rock/world music, but kept the Jazz in their name.
Then there is Kenny G...his music is filed under jazz too.
So there is jazz and then there is Jazz.
Here is a good start for discovering jazz: http://www.allaboutjazz.com/

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #7 on:** 17 Jul 2007, 03:48 am »

Quote

...tell me what it is about jazz....

Sid can tell you all about it......

mjosef · « **Reply #8 on:** 17 Jul 2007, 04:41 am »

That's as good a definition of Jazz as I have ever heard...

lazydays · « **Reply #9 on:** 17 Jul 2007, 05:43 pm »

Quote from: sts9fan on 16 Jul 2007, 05:42 pm

Is Bela Fleck Jazz? I love them and seen them a few times but I would not have called it jazz. I am not sure what I would call it though.

P.S. imvho Futureman is the worst

Bela plays a lot of jazz because he has to make a living just like the rest of us. What he really likes to play is blue grass. He one of the most sought after musicians out there in both venues. Still it's style much like the electric violin in jazz. You either like it or hate it.
Myself, when it comes to the banjo, I'll take Flatt and Scruggs.
gary

lazydays · « **Reply #10 on:** 17 Jul 2007, 05:46 pm »

Quote from: mjosef on 17 Jul 2007, 12:14 am

That mere act of not repeating the same ole same ole notes is what drew me to jazz...it makes it alive and breathing, always discovering new paths around the same composition. If a band has a weekly gig, you can go every night and never hear the exact same notes played in the same song...its always remaking itself.
By the way, there is a lot of music being called 'jazz' nowadays... A lot of the Jazz Festival around the world has incorporated pop/rock/world music, but kept the Jazz in their name.
Then there is Kenny G...his music is filed under jazz too.
So there is jazz and then there is Jazz.
Here is a good start for discovering jazz: http://www.allaboutjazz.com/

I've yet to run into one jazz musician that considers Kenny G and jazz musician. My idea od Keeny G is elevator music!
gary

1000a · « **Reply #11 on:** 17 Jul 2007, 06:42 pm »

please foregive me Kenny G does not even qualify as a starter kit for jazz

(but if he gets people interested in further investigating jazz its all good)

starter kit models would be say Bob James / Earl Klugh / Benson stuff since Breezin (not that these guys are not extremely good they have just kinda continulingly moved a little closer to pop than many serious jazz people would like)

in a perfect world these guys should lead people to Miles/ Diz / early Benson / Wes Montgomery / Charlie Byrd / Charlie Parker and the like - if anything just to see what this jazz stuff is all about.

for me anyway I started with Benson and Klugh (or so I thought

-read on) and over the years got more curious about jazz and continue to dig deeper and deeper, there is an incredible treasure chest waiting to be opened - its always new if I have not heard it yet no matter the dates.

really I could trace my beginning introduction to jazz back to the fusion stuff like Mahavisnew Orchestra Birds of Prey (many many yrs ago), Jeff Beck -wired and that ilk

the session guys from Steely Dan and many bands also lead me to investigate jazz (Tom Scott, Brekker Brothers, Larry Carlton and so on)

and then say not to forget Groover Washington (with his x over kinda R&B jazz)

then maybe Tower of Power (not jazz- but fantastic) got me to Tom Scott then the Crusaders

the good news is when these guys stray from their genres they introduce many to jazz much as Claptin and Zeppelin can lead people to BB King to Albert King to Buddy Guy to Muddy Waters to lightin Hopkins to Robert Johnson.

its all good and all fun so ultimately I guess one could consider Kenny G a positive and if they never dig deeper its either their loss or they just did not care enough to look.

so for me my journey to the real deal has taken me many many moons but I am thrilled there is a never ending vat of great music I have still yet to hear.

imagine never investigating beyond say your favorite 5-6 bands, we would all terribly limit ourselves from endless beauty to be discovered, a life time really is not enough time to open all the presents.

1000a · « **Reply #12 on:** 17 Jul 2007, 06:45 pm »

another way I found my self digging deeper into jazz was Carlos Santana constantly mentioning John Coltrane and Miles, anybody Santana constantly mentions I simply must hear.

WEEZ · « **Reply #13 on:** 17 Jul 2007, 06:48 pm »

For me, jazz can take on many styles....swing; be-bop; cool; dixieland...et al.

Two things usually give it away: the 'beat' or 'feel'; and 'improvisation'. It can be slow or fast; loud or soft; fused with blues or funk; simple or complex.....

But you know it when you hear it

WEEZ

ricmon · « **Reply #14 on:** 17 Jul 2007, 07:16 pm »

Seems like Weez and 1000a have a good handle on this jazz thing. I grew up listening to jazz (most kids parents made the dace to R&B. mine made us dance to jazz). The one thing I would like to add is the improvisation thing is way misunderstood. Jazz musicians write their music and then practice it. Thus the music as a beginning, middle and end. The improvisational parts is rooted in the cultural dynamics of the root speaking style of its creators. Stop over analyzing this great American art form and find the style that suits your taste and enjoy.

ooheadsoo · « **Reply #15 on:** 17 Jul 2007, 08:02 pm »

Quote from: ricmon on 17 Jul 2007, 07:16 pm

The one thing I would like to add is the improvisation thing is way misunderstood. Jazz musicians write their music and then practice it. Thus the music as a beginning, middle and end. The improvisational parts is rooted in the cultural dynamics of the root speaking style of its creators. Stop over analyzing this great American art form and find the style that suits your taste and enjoy.

Of course there are written parts, not the entire thing is improv. There is a form and structure that holds things together. However, in much traditional jazz, especially small ensemble, after they play the written melody a few times, they just start vamping and people take turns improvising or trading or what not. I'm sure most people don't think that everything is improvised. Especially when it comes to artists who play standards, obviously large parts of it are composed and arranged. But they also improvise on the parts that are written. Big bands also obviously have to play written parts or they will not play together. It's usually very easy to tell the written and improv parts apart. Even the best improv artists cannot improv a melody that is as well "composed" as something that one has spent hours or days or weeks shaping.

"Other" people without a "cultural root speaking style" have been involved and been innovators in jazz since its creation. Today, jazz is an international phenomenon and has much broader influences than just that of its creators. The jazz police don't want you to think of these artists as jazz, but they've appropriated jazz and made it their own, all the same.

Turnandcough · « **Reply #16 on:** 17 Jul 2007, 09:23 pm »

I think rock albums like Jethro Tull's early albums and Santana's "Caravanserai" planted the seed for me. Miles' "Bitches Brew" and Kind of Blue" , as far as I can remember, were probably my first initiation to the purer form. The jazz album that I listened to most is probably Stanley Turrentine's "Sugar". I developed a strong appreciation for him after seeing him live at Montréal's Rising Sun. I was 18 or 19 at the time and sat only a few feet from the band(they were really cooking). Later a major 70's style party broke out back stage. A memorable evening indeed. I think it was then that I really began to understand jazz.
I doubt a Kenny G. show would have had the same impact.

lazydays · « **Reply #17 on:** 18 Jul 2007, 04:18 am »

Quote from: 1000a on 17 Jul 2007, 06:45 pm

another way I found my self digging deeper into jazz was Carlos Santana constantly mentioning John Coltrane and Miles, anybody Santana constantly mentions I simply must hear.

Santana learned from a great jazz guitarists in Frisco; Bill Lancton. Bill still plays on a regular basis, and is still good if not better than 95% of his peers.
gary

lazydays · « **Reply #18 on:** 18 Jul 2007, 05:19 am »

with jazz one has to understand that it's as precise as classical music, but with a little more zip. Both venues have their change ups and various tempos to keep it interesting. When I think of jazz I will picking out individual instruments. After awhile I even go so are as to catalog them.
my picks run like this:
* alto sax this will cause a fire storm; I like Sonny Fortune and Parker
* Clairnet / soprano sax Wayne Shorter, Alvin Batiste, and Frank Glover
* tenor sax Coletrane, Henderson, Brecker, Dexter Gorden, Webster, Dave
Young, and Stan Getz, and Sonny Rollins stand out. There are a few others as
well.
* Trumpet Of course I'm a Miles Davis fan! But don't forget Art Farmer, Freddie
Hubbard, Chet Baker, , Armstrong, and the Diz
* piano Rubacalba is probably the best out there right now. But don't forget
Evans and Peterson along with Basie. There are a couple of "unknowns" out
there that can play with these guys on a daily basis.
* trombone Wow! I drank beer for a few years with J.J., and heard about a lot
of them. Kia Winding and Slide are two of the greatest we'll ever hear. Then
there is Steve Turre, and Barbarie out of NYC.
* B-3 well there are three and then a few chasers. McGriff, and Melvin Rhyne ,
and Brother jack McDuff are the very best. Period! Of the three Rhyne is the
only one left playing. There is Tony Monaco out of Ohio. DeFransisco is not in
the same league with these four.
* you can divide this into acoustic bass and electric bass. With the electric
bass, the best is Clark, Cranshaw, and Pastorius.
with acoustic bass, there is a real multitude to choose from. The best there
ever was, is Scott LaFaro. Followed by Gomez, Peacock, Seaton, Ray Brown,
and Dave Holland.
* if you happen to like the guitar, the place to start is with Wes Montgomery
(you'll likely run into Melvin Rhyne as well). Wes set the style that few can
follow. Of the current crop John Schofield is probably the best. John
Abercrombe is another to watch for. Kenny Burrel, Herb Ellis, and Pat Martino
are others to watch out for.
gary

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #19 on:** 18 Jul 2007, 05:27 am »

You left off Jimmy Smith for the B3.....