New standards ...
LarryV
become more of a commodity item - here today and gone tomorrow. It
doesn't appear to be limited to a specific genre of music either.
There are lots of songs that become popular, and 6 months later I
couldn't even tell you who did the song. Are the days of songs
eventually becoming standards gone the way of the dinosaur? I think in
the past - 50's, 60's, there wasn't as much music to choose from so
people were exposed to the same songs for a longer period of time
before the songs eventually faded from the charts, and this gave them a
much greater longevity. These days, the lifecycle of most songs seems
to be pretty shortlived and not very memorable. Your thoughts?
patrick
These days, the lifecycle of most songs seems
> to be pretty shortlived and not very memorable. Your thoughts?
the production values. Today's music is reliant on having a 'unique' sound
or point of view that it dates it self right out of existence. Hard to
develop a standard when it become annoying, hackneyed, or identifiable with
a particular "Artist"[ and I use the term lightly with regards to today's
Pop-superstars ]
Besides most Pop music today is looking to break new ground, hence no
respect to what came before. Well maybe respect is not the right word, but
today's Pop song writers don't want to repeat themselves, or any one else.
New. Bigger. Badder. Slicker. Faster. More dumb down the ever before.
Thank God Jazz has returned to it roots of Swing, Blues, and Standards. Of
course that not for everyone. So lets here a round of applause of those who
pioneer Jazz into the future. I wonder were they'll tack us?
Jack A. Zucker
> Thank God Jazz has returned to it roots of Swing, Blues, and Standards.
> Of course that not for everyone. So lets here a round of applause of
> those who pioneer Jazz into the future. I wonder were they'll tack us?
Thank God jazz is a dynamic for that won't be tied down to a preconceived
notion of what it is and isn't. I don't see that jazz has returned to
anything. It continues to grow and flourish, beyond the control of any
governing body.
Folks like Tony Grey, Lonnie Plaxico, Oli Rockberger, Doug Wamble, Rodney
Jones, Dave Fiuczynski, Jon Kreisberg, Brad Meldau, Chris Potter, Wynton and
Branford Marsalis continue to refine and evolve even while they pay homage
to the classics.
Personally, I wouldn't have it any other way...
--
http://www.myspace.com/jackzucker
http://www.sheetsofsound.net
Tim McNamara
"LarryV" <lar...@rcn.com> wrote:
Well, IMHO the reason that modern pop songs have a short service life is
that (1) they suck and (2) most pop musicians have limited musical
skills. Of course, both of those attitudes may just be from being a
curmudgeonly old fart! I suppose a lot of people will think that (1)
and (2) have both been true since the rise of folk music in popular
music in the early 1960s. I dropped out of paying any attention to pop
music in college (1977-81) when I discovered the Grateful Dead and jazz,
in that order. My wife is a U2 and Richard Thompson fan so I get some
exposure to that, and her other musical interests are non-pop.
The harmonic and melodic content of pop music has continued to simplify
towards the banal, IMHO, to the point that it is homogenized and
indistinguishable on the radio. I literally can't tell one artist from
the next quite frequently. Who to blame? Well, I like to blame record
companies for seeking out the tried and true, clone music that just apes
what was a hit before. The goal is not to put out good music and let
the public choose, but to put out the mega-hit that rakes in billions of
dollars. Music as a commodity rather than as an art form. The rise of
MTV as a primary source of exposure is also a factor, as the appearance
and sexual attraction takes precedence over the music, humans being a
predominantly visual animal. So, Britney Spears is a megastar who can't
sing her way out of a paper bag, but makes almost all the boys and a
fair number of the girls hot and thus sells tons (literally) of CDs
thanks to the music video.
Ella probably wouldn't even get a recording contract nowadays. What a
pity.
The last new thing in pop music was hip hop, and I think of that not so
much as music but as poetry with a Beat heritage, albeit urbanized (and
decidedly not white-Jewish-Buddhist, which was largely the matrix from
which the Beats came forth). It would be pretty hard to adapt hip hop
songs into jazz standards as such, although there has been some fusion
of jazz and hip hop (IIRC Ron Carter has done some stuff with this).
But few if any pop songs I have heard offer the scope for adaptation
into jazz standards. And unfortunately few jazz musicians write songs
that have catchy enough melodic content to grad the ears of the casual
listener. In fact, I suspect that if Johnny Smith came on the scene
today, many people would think he was a "smooth jazz" player.
Gerry
Zucker <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thank God Jazz has returned to it roots of Swing, Blues, and Standards.
> > Of course that not for everyone. So lets here a round of applause of
> > those who pioneer Jazz into the future. I wonder were they'll tack us?
>
> Thank God jazz is a dynamic for that won't be tied down to a preconceived
> notion of what it is and isn't. I don't see that jazz has returned to
> anything. It continues to grow and flourish, beyond the control of any
> governing body.
I think "jazz" grows both verticaly and horizontally. The crew that use
to work primarily with the "American Songbook" as it has come to be
called, now seem to take more pride in doing this, unearthing gems
(unplayed tunes by Cahn and Vernan Duke and Harold Arlen, etc). That's
the vertical. They've begun to use that phrase too, which I think is
good. It clarifies the genre-within-a genre.
And horizontal: Simultaneously some wings of jazz seems to have become
more personal and continue off in their own directions, with some
artists playing more traditional styles, others expanding the scope of
modern styles and the myriad cul-de-sacs in between.
And Latin jazz is developing by leaps and bounds as well.
--
One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that
one's work is terribly important. -- Bertrand Russell
Kid Kool
> > With all of the influx of music today, it seems to me that songs have
> > become more of a commodity item
> Well, IMHO the reason that modern pop songs have a short service life is
> that (1) they suck and (2) most pop musicians have limited musical
> skills.
In other words, nothing's changed. Remember the dreck from the British
Invasion? Can you say "Freddie and the Dreamers"? LOL! How about the
Hippy Hippy Shake, by the swinging Blue Jeans? Anything by Herman and
the Hermits. Whoo-ee. There was some seriously lame shit going down.
Before them stinkin' Limeys there were all the Bobbies - Bobby V, Bobby
Curtola, Bobby Vinton, U-Name-It. How about the deathless music created
by Fabian? He had a range of three whole tones, and he was dodgy at
that. Sold zillions. Going back to The Golden Age of Jazz, how about
"When The Slush Begins To Rush Down Father's Front," a big hit for a
swing band whose name, mercifully, escapes me? There's always been
garbage, because it's easily produced and marketed to a buying public
that has always wanted new things to dance to. We look back in fondness
because either, a) all we listen to is the good stuff that has stood
the test of time, like Miles and Duke, and we ignore the Slush, or b)
It was a hit when we were 14 so we have a soft spot for it. Ars longa,
vita brevis, et purgamentum undique.
Tim McNamara
"Kid Kool" <kidk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We look back in fondness because either, a) all we listen to is the
> good stuff that has stood the test of time, like Miles and Duke, and
> we ignore the Slush, or b) It was a hit when we were 14 so we have a
> soft spot for it. Ars longa, vita brevis, et purgamentum undique.
LOL! And right on the money.
Sean
While reading the rest of the comments in this thread, I applied my
mind to thinking of any recent pop tune that I've heard that might
stand the test of time and is strong enough melodically to provide
grist for the interpretation mills of folks like jazz musicians.
Norah Jones' "Don't Know Why" (written by her guitar player) came to
mind. I might have got a little sick of hearing her version, but I
think the tune is strong enough to generate interpretations in later
years.
Does Elvis Costello's "Alison" count as modern pop music?
Gerry
wrote:
> Does Elvis Costello's "Alison" count as modern pop music?
Ask us in 10 years.
sg...@hotmail.com
mentioned) that haven't been played to death, but it's hard to find
them.
One source I've always used is Alec Wilder's (a great writer
himself)"The Classic American Song", (OSLT) in which he goes through
the output of each songwriter, and points out the gems written by each
writer.
He goes through hundreds of tunes, but his dividing line was about
1950.
To find good songs after that is a lot more difficult.
The sources I've used are movies, rock tunes and of course, show
tunes.
My solution on a CD I made was to use all originals, but some of
them were songs I wrote based on standards' changes, as many musicians
have done.
I would never record songs like "Night and Day" and
"Stella," using their heads, but I did write tunes based on their
changes that I gave imaginative names to, such as "Day and Night"(yes I
know, sheer genius)and "Stella by Bar Light."
I even took two more obscure standards and did the same thing.
The one tune that wasn't mine is so obscure, that only one person has
ever recorded it, and they didn't do too good a job of it(don't ask).
tomb...@jhu.edu
>
> The last new thing in pop music was hip hop, and I think of that not so
> much as music but as poetry with a Beat heritage, albeit urbanized (and
> decidedly not white-Jewish-Buddhist, which was largely the matrix from
> which the Beats came forth).
The Beat roots of hip hop? I doubt it. Reciting/ranting over a
percussive beat goes back to caveman days. It's probably the oldest
form of music there is. The only new aspect of hip hop is the sampling
and orchestration.
Gerry
<sg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> There are still songs written by the great songwriters (as Gerry
> mentioned) that haven't been played to death, but it's hard to find
> them.
> One source I've always used is Alec Wilder's (a great writer
> himself)"The Classic American Song", (OSLT) in which he goes through
> the output of each songwriter, and points out the gems written by each
> writer.
What a great book. I read that many long years ago and pursued a number
of writers and songs I hadn't previously been aware of. Actually,
prior to reading the book I didn't know Alec Wilder or his most well
known tune, "I'll Be Around" until I'd read the book.
> He goes through hundreds of tunes, but his dividing line was about
> 1950.
> To find good songs after that is a lot more difficult.
> The sources I've used are movies, rock tunes and of course, show
> tunes.
> My solution on a CD I made was to use all originals, but some of
> them were songs I wrote based on standards' changes, as many musicians
> have done.
> I would never record songs like "Night and Day" and
> "Stella," using their heads, but I did write tunes based on their
> changes that I gave imaginative names to, such as "Day and Night"(yes I
> know, sheer genius)and "Stella by Bar Light."
> I even took two more obscure standards and did the same thing.
> The one tune that wasn't mine is so obscure, that only one person has
> ever recorded it, and they didn't do too good a job of it(don't ask).
>
--
Jack A. Zucker
the same linear manner as it did from the '30s through the '70s. - i.e.
Jazz will continue to based on standard AABA type forms and be representable
by real book notation. I'm not so sure that's going to be the case.
"LarryV" <lar...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:1155470146.2...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Steven Bornfeld
Many of the standards came from Broadway. Who's around now writing for
the musical stage that can compare with Gershwin, Kern, Arlen, Rodgers?
Well, there's Sondheim...
I am only slightly aware of the music from "Light In the Piazza" and
from what I've heard it is at least musically literate, but I don't know
that any "standards" will come from it.
Yes, there was always trash popular music. But if there are any
songwriters likely to write "standards" as we understand the term
referring to songs from the '20s thru the '50s that are as fresh today
as they were then, I don't know about them. Somebody prove me wrong...
Steve
Kid Kool
Jack A. Zucker wrote:
> To me, people are missing the point. Folks are expecting jazz to evolve in
> the same linear manner as it did from the '30s through the '70s. - i.e.
> Jazz will continue to based on standard AABA type forms and be representable
> by real book notation. I'm not so sure that's going to be the case.
Agreed. The stuff that Dom Minasi is one example of boldly going etc.
Kleinhaut is one among many writing some very nice stuff that isn't
Cole Porter. Were jazz to remain based on standard AABA type forms and
be representable by real book notation, it would cease to be the jazz
that has constantly sought new avenues of expresison and would become a
formal chamber music instead.
Gerry
Zucker <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote:
> To me, people are missing the point. Folks are expecting jazz to evolve in
> the same linear manner as it did from the '30s through the '70s. - i.e.
> Jazz will continue to based on standard AABA type forms and be representable
> by real book notation. I'm not so sure that's going to be the case.
I think it will evolve in more way than one.
--
The cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiousity. -- Dorothy
Parker
JP
One of the main ingredients for me is the language used the music and
improv.
For instance, i don't hear "jazz" in the latest "Steve Vai"..or in "band of
Gypsys" or "Dream Theatre"
However I do in Rodeny Jones or Kreisberg, Maldau, Marsalis's etc.
It is a term that I believe is too often used as a broad brush stroke.
"Jack A. Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote in message
news:8OednSaYBNaV0ULZ...@adelphia.com...
tom walls
Gerry wrote:
> In article <2006081312123516807-sean@fakecom>, Sean <se...@fake.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Does Elvis Costello's "Alison" count as modern pop music?
>
> Ask us in 10 years.
Jeez, it's already 26-27 years old. He gave a good performance, but I
don't think it's an exceptional tune. It relies heavily on dynamics,
otherwise it's pretty vanilla. True of much modern pop music, I guess:
it's written to support the performance style of a single individual
rather than a piece that will stand on it's own.
icarusi
> to be pretty shortlived and not very memorable. Your thoughts?
I think there are some songs which could become new 'standards' but with the
current compartmentalisation of music it isn't likely that the people who
could make them into standards will either hear them or take a chance on
being the first to use them. I think there's also more emphasis on original
player-composed music now, so fewer total chances for standards of all
types.
icarusi
--
remove the 00 to reply