Pop Musicians playing jazz - Upset or Grateful?
David Kotschessa
around with Tony Bennett doing standards.
Am I supposed to be happy about this? Is there a chance in hell that
this could be the beginnings of some trend that might lead to a more
widespread insterest in Jazz? Will it catch on? Would it be a good
thing?
The difference between Jazz as pop now and jazz when it was really
popular, is simply musicianship. I heard these legends of the days,
proportedly which existed before I was born, where musicianship was
respected in the world of popular music.
Rod Stewart is just a guy with a voice that some people like. His
renditions of the tunes are boring as shit. Even if I liked his
voice, he's not giving me anything new. I mean, I could have a great
guitar - does this make me a great guitarist? The closest he probably
gets to improvisation is farting during a song.
Tony Bennet - well, he's Tony Bennet. A legend, of course, but what
can he do for us now? He's tooling around with K.D. lang. Ok guys,
great, now give me something new. Show me some lines! Improvise for
godsakes!
Ok, so maybe the world isn't ready for that. Maybe I should just stop
whining and be grateful that these tunes are being heard elsewhere.
Hey, at least they swing, right? When was the last time something in
the top 40 even did that?
I fantasize about a chain reaction. The public says "What's this?
Swing? Interesting! I like it. I want more." Maybe they start
buying the old stuff too. More musicians pick up on it. Suddenly - I
am a hip guy.
It would be much like the mid 90s when I suddently became cool because
I was a computer guy. Now, everybody else was doing it. I could come
proudly out of the geek closet without shame. "Yes, that's right.
I've had a computer since I was 7. No, sorry, I'm busy Saturday -
taking my two girlfriends to the computer show. Maybe I can fit you
in next week. Do you have a sister?"
The more likely reality is that it will become a packaged product like
anything else with no real substance. The Companies - clothing,
resturaunt, and coffee shops, will have found their newest trend.
Suddenly, jazz will become cool. People will start wearing beatnick
clothes and saying "Crazy, man crazy." They will exhibit every
retro-characteristic from the period they can get ahold of - except
the actual good music.
I will have to dig even deeper into my hole, because I don't want to
hear people say "Yeah, I like Jazz too! I love that Britney Spears
song about the Stormy Weather. It's like - crazy, you know? I like
the beat! It's kind of different! Backstreet boys covered it but you
know, I only like her original version."
I still don't know what to think. I am going to hold off on sending
my Thank You card to Rod Stewart for now.
-Dave
Mark Kleinhaut
dkots...@yahoo.com (David Kotschessa) wrote:
>Rod Stewart has this album of Jazz standards. K.D. Lang is going
>around with Tony Bennett doing standards.
>
Only jazz musicians play jazz. If pop musicians play tunes from the standard
repertoire it's still pop. If jazz musicians play music from the pop repertoire
it's still jazz. If pop musicians and jazz musicians collaborate you wind
up with something of a blend, but that still doesn't change the fundamental
character of each performer. Rod Stuart is not a jazz musician no matter
who he gets in his band.
Back when pop musicians and jazz musicians drew from the same repertoire
of tunes there were many collaborations too, but I think the fundmental differences
were still there. Did anyone think Ethel Merman or Rosemary Clooney were
jazz musicians?
markkl...@hotmail.com
Info and soundclips about:
"Chasing Tales":
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Chasing%20Tales.html
"Amphora":
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Amphora.html
"Secrets of Three": http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/SO3.html
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
paul
wrote:
>
>Am I supposed to be happy about this? Is there a chance in hell that
>this could be the beginnings of some trend that might lead to a more
>widespread insterest in Jazz?
I don't think it will. As jazz fans we like to hope so, but it never
ends up happening. it didn't happen with Ken Burns, Barry Manilow,
Woody Allen or any of the other things that are supposed to create a
widespread interest in jazz.
It's my opinion that jazz, and art music in general, will continue to
be a niche music, because most people aren't able to hear and perceive
things that complex. until we educate our kids to understand music and
sound to the same degree they understand colors and shapes, there will
be no appreciation for art music.
--paul
Mark Kleinhaut
pcsa...@pobox.com (paul) wrote:
>until we educate our kids to understand music and
>sound to the same degree they understand colors and shapes, there will
>be no appreciation for art music.
>
>--paul
DING DING DING DING...that is the single most critical factor that will impact
the future audiences for jazz.
Heidi and Don
Where have you been during this "swing" revival of the last 5 or 6
years? We were having high school kids putting together swing
bands and small groups and playing our coffee house four years
ago. There's dance contests, Ally McBeal Swing sightings and
really it's probably the source of the current rising interest in
and prices of archtop guitars. We're in central PA, I doubt this
area is the source of any fads or cultural waves unless there's a
breaking shoofly pie or lebanon bologna thang I don't know about.
dj
dj
Bill Ribas
Mark Kleinhaut
>> The title of this thread is an oxymoron. Pop musicians can't play jazz.
>> Only jazz musicians play jazz. If pop musicians play tunes from the
>standard
>> repertoire it's still pop. If jazz musicians play music from the pop
>repertoire
>> it's still jazz. If pop musicians and jazz musicians collaborate you wind
>> up with something of a blend, but that still doesn't change the
>fundamental
>> character of each performer. Rod Stuart is not a jazz musician no matter
>> who he gets in his band.
>>
>> Back when pop musicians and jazz musicians drew from the same repertoire
>> of tunes there were many collaborations too, but I think the fundmental
>differences
>> were still there. Did anyone think Ethel Merman or Rosemary Clooney were
>> jazz musicians?
>> markkl...@hotmail.com
>>
You talk'n to me? Huh, you talk'n to me?
Heidi and Don
Aw geez, my kid sent that before it was done.
At any rate, Rod Stewart isn't going to be
taking a sale away from from Brown, Alexander
and Malone, he's going to stimulate sales of
swing and standards in general. If the album
does well. Now what was that Sean Penn movie
that made everyone rush out and become jazz
guitarists?
Don
Joe Finn
news:4589696c.0302...@posting.google.com...
> Rod Stewart has this album of Jazz standards. K.D. Lang is going
> around with Tony Bennett doing standards.
>
> Am I supposed to be happy about this? Is there a chance in hell that
> this could be the beginnings of some trend that might lead to a more
> widespread insterest in Jazz? Will it catch on? Would it be a good
> thing?
>
The material that K.D. Lang and Rod Stewart are doing is more like pop
standards than jazz standards. The great American songwriting tradition that
includes the Gershwins, Porter, Berlin, Hammerstein, Kern, Warren, Youmans
etc. has left us with an enormous legacy of outstanding material. Jazz and
pop performers have played this Great American Songbook for generations.
This tends to confuse matters a bit in terms of the nomenclature. The
process of standardization has occurred on parallel tracks. A Streisand
rendition of My Favorite Things for example offers a different stylistic
sensibility from that of Coltrane. The strength of many of these pop
classics is that they not only survive in different styles, they truly
blossom. They tend to elevate the performer's statement in ways that
transcend any one style. They are that strong.
Jazz standards to me are things like I Mean You, ESP, Take Five, Dolphin
Dance, etc. The compositions of jazz musicians that have caught on [and
therefore been "standardized"] among other jazz players also have a great
strength and flexibility. These tunes don't seem to have the cross-over
appeal with the pop singers that the pop standards have with the jazz
players.
Anyway, older pop standards will continue to be discovered by new
generations of listeners who will find something of themselves in the songs.
The great lyrics deal with such universal themes that they will probably be
around forever. Rod Stewart and K.D. Lang are not the first rockers to
cross over into the greater pop tradition and they will not be the last.
......joe
--
Visit me on the web. www.JoeFinn.net
Bill Ribas
"Mark Kleinhaut" <markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e4c...@binarykiller.newsgroups.com...mebbe
Mark Kleinhaut
I'm not upset. Pissed maybe, but never upset:)
Jay Carlson
>
> "Bill Ribas" <bill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Mark Kleinhaut" <markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3e4c...@binarykiller.newsgroups.com...
> >>
> >> "Bill Ribas" <bill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >wow, appears someone is upset.
> >> >>
> >> >> markkl...@hotmail.com
> >> >>
> >>
> >> You talk'n to me? Huh, you talk'n to me?
> >>
> >mebbe
> >
> >
>
> I'm not upset. Pissed maybe, but never upset:)
>
> markkl...@hotmail.com
LOL.
I'm grateful for pop musicians doing older standard type tunes, but I
wouldn't call it jazz. - like Norah Jones doing "The Nearness of You", as a
matter of fact, I've been asked by a bride to do that one at a wedding
tomorrow. I think it's great that those type tunes are being rediscovered
by younger people. For many years it was only other players and the 'blue
hair' crowd that knew those tunes. I'd rather play 'Nearness of You' than
fake my way through Canon in D for the hundredth time, or Wind Beneath My
Wings :)
But I wouldn't call what those pop-tarts do jazz.
Jay
http://artists2.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Jay_Carlson/
Jurupari
>area is the source of any fads or cultural waves unless there's a
>breaking shoofly pie or lebanon bologna thang I don't know about.
Man, that is one double-edged image!
As to the one you really meant, I wish there was...this is a sopapilla/relleno
neighborhood and that would be nice once in awhile.
I was mostly a pop musician by trade but I always played jazz. There used to be
a place where one stopped and the other began, but not anymore.
Covering stuff like The Sons, RTF such as I could, Edgar Winter's Entrance,
Quincy Jones arrangements and a bunch of Steely Dan sort of smeared the
boundaries, as did all the world music influence on pop and jazz in the last 30
years or more.
Some jazz guys are real chameleons - they can blend seamlessly into damn near
everything, and some don't have any experience in pop, don't want any, and
that's that.
I've mentioned hangin in a hotel room with Tony Williams, Kenny Barron and
Stanley Clarke for a couple of hours, and when James Brown came on TV, they
stopped talking and were all ears. That stuff was old old old hat to me by that
time, but not them...that was a lightning bolt revelation to me.
I can't fault anyone for feeling anti-pop, because I played pop stuff to make
a living while learning to play jazz. If I'd been able to make the transition
in my twenties and sustain myself, I would have, but I couldn't.
But I'll never really grow past the experience or the influence. I've played
with some incredibly kicking, incredibly versatile bands, along with some
really lame ones, of course.
Clif Kuplen
paul
<markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>DING DING DING DING...that is the single most critical factor that will impact
>the future audiences for jazz.
>
this is the principal reason why, if I can't make a living performing,
I'd like to teach ear training to kids and adults who feel like
they're musically inept. I just need to figure out how to do it.
--paul
Paul Pieper
Stewart is not playing "jazz tunes". Jazz musicians have always appropriated
tunes that they can use as vehicles for expression. Jazz is not a song, its
a way of playing. So Rod Stewart, to my mind, is not playing or singing jazz
if he does some standard tunes. It is what it is, and I'm sure the people
browsing at Barnes and Noble will be titillated senseless when they hear it
being played over the store's sound system. Its just a pop singer singing
pop tunes - which is not a bad thing.
Paul Pieper
Pat
wrote:
>Jazz standards to me are things like I Mean You, ESP, Take Five,
Take 5 was number one in the pop charts.
This whole thread goes back to "What is Jazz"?
Pat
Mark Kleinhaut
That's easy, jazz is unpopular.
Chuckk Hubbard
> around with Tony Bennett doing standards.
Am I the only one here who absolutely hates Rod Stewart? He is unbearable.
His music, too.
>
> Am I supposed to be happy about this? Is there a chance in hell that
> this could be the beginnings of some trend that might lead to a more
> widespread insterest in Jazz? Will it catch on? Would it be a good
> thing?
Jazz is trendy already, which doesn't mean it's seriously pursued and
appreciated, rather that having it, the older and more authentic the better,
playing in the living room adds to the credibility of the Camus book on the
coffee table or the Picasso on the wall. Better yet, Kerouac. I.e.,
intellectual.
As for everyone liking it, nope. Some of the ladies I work with put on the
hip-hop station one night, and when I expressed disgust at how they repeated
the same 6 seconds of music over and over and pined for some jazz, one
insisted "Jazz puts you to sleep! That's relaxing music!" and the other
decided: "Now Kenny G is a'ight, he's pretty good." Don't think I'm a
racist when I say both these women were black; matter of fact, maybe Black
History Month would be the perfect time to expose them to Monk.
I dunno, though; maybe if it were really the 'in' thing, everyone would
listen to it. But would it make a difference? The majority of people will
never be as intelligent or discerning as the more intelligent and
discerning. If they were, we wouldn't have all this talk of war.
I have an analogy ready for them: fine wine vs. hard licquor- yes, hard
licquor (hip-hop) gets you out of your seat, gets your blood pumping, rocks
your world faster, but the millions who are into fine wine (jazz) have every
reason to enjoy the experience to the fullest, and just because you can't
tell what's so great about it doesn't mean it's not a more rewarding
experience for those who can.
-Chuckk
Max Leggett
<markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Pat <pea...@insight.com> wrote:
>>>This whole thread goes back to "What is Jazz"?
>>
>>Pat
>
>That's easy, jazz is unpopular.
>
And it gets lousy money and no groupies.
tomw
says...
> "David Kotschessa" <dkots...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4589696c.0302...@posting.google.com...
> > Rod Stewart has this album of Jazz standards. K.D. Lang is going
> > around with Tony Bennett doing standards.
>
> Am I the only one here who absolutely hates Rod Stewart? He is unbearable.
> His music, too.
>
No, I hate him; but I hate everybody. Well, actually, I don't hate Tony
Bennet or kd lang.
> >
> > Am I supposed to be happy about this? Is there a chance in hell that
> > this could be the beginnings of some trend that might lead to a more
> > widespread insterest in Jazz? Will it catch on? Would it be a good
> > thing?
>
> Jazz is trendy already, which doesn't mean it's seriously pursued and
> appreciated, rather that having it, the older and more authentic the better,
> playing in the living room adds to the credibility of the Camus book on the
> coffee table or the Picasso on the wall. Better yet, Kerouac. I.e.,
> intellectual.
It cracks me up, when y'all(you know who you are) characterize jazz this
way. Do you seriously think that this would improve someone's social
cachet? I must have been grievously overlooked for the past thirty
years. But don't stop, it's good for a laugh.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
dan waineo
training from playing music has let me appreciate it. The more I improve as
a musician the more of a jazz freak I become and the more enjoyment I get
out of it.
I'm amazed it is as popular as it is. My friends appreciate jazz but their
record collections consist of a few Ella, or Louie CDs and a whole lot of
popular music.
I have probably 100 jazz CDs but I'm in the minority. Jazz is like a
pyramid scheme, only jazz musicians (and wannabe) buy the music. It
collapses on itself and no one makes any money.
"paul" <pcsa...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:3e4d0cb6....@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
Jonathan Giblin
I agree up to a point, but it may be a little strong to say there will
be no appreciation for art music. The biggest problem for both jazz
and classical music is certainly the absense of music education and
the dumbing down of our popular culture. If we could address that,
we'd see a real increase in the popularity of these two musical forms.
It's worthwhile to distinguish here between jazz and pop music. The
great American songbook is pop music. It's more sophisticated pop
music than what's currently in vogue, but it's still pop music. When
Tony Bennett sings Witchcraft, that's a pop singer singing a pop song.
Still, I'm glad to see more sophisticated pop music being performed
and recorded, and I like Tony Bennett for what he is. These are, for
the most part, great songs. And since the great American Songbook
contains many songs that have become jazz standards, maybe a few
people will eventually acquire a taste for a more sophisticated
treatment of those songs. In the meantime, it's good that American
music culture hasn't gone 100 percent hip hop just yet.
Joe Finn
> Take 5 was number one in the pop charts.
>
> This whole thread goes back to "What is Jazz"?
Pat: The stylistic parameters within the definition aside for the moment,
what a pop artist like a Michael Feinstein and a jazz artist like a Joe
Lovano might do with a pop standard like Someone to Watch Over Me are really
two different things. To Feinstein, Gershwin is something of a monument to a
certain cultural moment. He has celebrated this music throughout his career
in a way that is more or less in keeping with the traditions of American
musical theatre. He sees the song as a total package of words, melody,
harmony and time and is very keen on the historical perspective the song
represents. Joe Lovano as a jazz player recorded the same song minus the
lyric as a sort of vehicle for his interpretation of the melody and for his
improvised variations on it. I know that's not "what jazz is" but without
revisiting that topic too strenuously let's just say that this is part of
"what jazz players do".
Regarding your comment about popularity let me say this. A great many styles
of music have loyal and enthusiastic audiences. Take Five was indeed a
number that really connected with a broad audience demographic but lots of
other jazz recordings have done the same thing. Along with Time Out,
Saxophone Colossus, A Love Supreme and Kind of Blue still sell. Some of
today's recordings also have broad crossover appeal. The jazz/pop
sensibility of Dianna Krall for instance has been pure record industry gold.
Her great commercial success has obviously not gone un-noticed by the
producers and managers handling the likes of Rod Stewart and K.D. Lang .
...........joe
David Kotschessa
> dkots...@yahoo.com (David Kotschessa) wrote:
> >Rod Stewart has this album of Jazz standards. K.D. Lang is going
> >around with Tony Bennett doing standards.
> >
> The title of this thread is an oxymoron. Pop musicians can't play jazz.
Well, you're right, but the fact is, they and the regular stupid
population of America (i.e. most of it) THINKs they are playing jazz,
because they are playing from the same repertoire.
> Only jazz musicians play jazz. If pop musicians play tunes from the standard
> repertoire it's still pop. If jazz musicians play music from the pop repertoire
> it's still jazz. If pop musicians and jazz musicians collaborate you wind
> up with something of a blend, but that still doesn't change the fundamental
> character of each performer. Rod Stuart is not a jazz musician no matter
> who he gets in his band.
Yeah. "Sticking feathers up your ass doesn't make you a chicken."
> Back when pop musicians and jazz musicians drew from the same repertoire
> of tunes there were many collaborations too, but I think the fundmental differences
> were still there. Did anyone think Ethel Merman or Rosemary Clooney were
> jazz musicians?
> markkl...@hotmail.com
Who?
hehe. Just kidding. They weren't, but I'd still take either one of
them over "Rod" any day. (uh, in the musical sense I mean). At least
the repertoire was worth drawing from. I don't see a lot of people
drawing from "today's pop" (Yes, Herbie tried) to come up with any
good jazz.
-Dave
Pete Kerezman
<markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Pat <pea...@insight.com> wrote:
>>>This whole thread goes back to "What is Jazz"?
>>
>
>That's easy, jazz is unpopular.
>
It's a sad state of affairs. Jazz probably will never be "popular"
because it takes some effort on the part of the listener to get
anything out of it. I think most folks think of music very
differently than musicians do, and that they see it more as a
background soundtrack to their lives rather than an end in itself.
Texas Pete
David Kotschessa
> Where have you been during this "swing" revival of the last 5 or 6
> years?
In my room with the lights off, and wearing earplugs. I must have
missed it!
> We were having high school kids putting together swing
> bands and small groups and playing our coffee house four years
> ago. There's dance contests, Ally McBeal Swing sightings and
> really it's probably the source of the current rising interest in
> and prices of archtop guitars. We're in central PA, I doubt this
> area is the source of any fads or cultural waves unless there's a
> breaking shoofly pie or lebanon bologna thang I don't know about.
>
> dj
I have to admit that it's easier to find jazz then it was in the 80s
or early 90s. The "coffee house" atmosphere is conducive to either
jazz or folk music, thank God. If it weren't for the $5.00 coffee I
might actually have a place to go out in public during the day.
-Dave
Mr.Will
>my Thank You card to Rod Stewart for now.
I think your suggestion of stopping whining and just getting on is a good one.
I always thought music was for everyone, even Rod Stewart, KD Lang etc. I hate
the snobbery that can be found in jazz, just like I hate the snobbery that can
be found in any musical style.
its obviously quite clear that these records aren't for the purist etc. so why
sit around evaluating them as if they were intended for you? Its like being
upset at the WWE, when you're a fan of actual proper sport.
>Rod Stewart is just a guy with a voice that some people like. His
>renditions of the tunes are boring as shit. Even if I liked his
>voice, he's not giving me anything new. I mean, I could have a great
>guitar - does this make me a great guitarist? The closest he probably
>gets to improvisation is farting during a song.
>
>Tony Bennet - well, he's Tony Bennet. A legend, of course, but what
>can he do for us now? He's tooling around with K.D. lang. Ok guys,
>great, now give me something new. Show me some lines! Improvise for
>godsakes!
>
>Ok, so maybe the world isn't ready for that. Maybe I should just stop
>whining and be grateful that these tunes are being heard elsewhere.
>Hey, at least they swing, right? When was the last time something in
>the top 40 even did that?
>
This theme of wanting something new is often the reserve of folk who insist
that if you didn't hear the OLD, obscure 1950s bebop record then you havent
heard jazz. It seems a reason to hate something, when in reality that isnt the
reason at all.
Rod Stewart singing jazz IS something new, its just not what you want to hear.
At least be honest rather than pretending to operate from a level of reason.
Mr.Will
Guitar and Vocal duo
www.sarahandwill.co.uk
Mr.Will
>population of America (i.e. most of it) THINKs they are playing jazz,
>because they are playing from the same repertoire.
Yawn......who cares?
Can it not be argued that jazz musicians tend to go out of their way to be less
and less relevant to the music public?
David Kotschessa
> "David Kotschessa" <dkots...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4589696c.0302...@posting.google.com...
> > Rod Stewart has this album of Jazz standards. K.D. Lang is going
> > around with Tony Bennett doing standards.
>
> Am I the only one here who absolutely hates Rod Stewart? He is unbearable.
> His music, too.
Nope, I feel pretty much like stabbing him every time I hear his
little shitty sandpapery breathy throaty voice, singing the tunes with
about as much rythmic interest as MIDI versions of Real Book tunes.
(Trying futily to channel the still living Pat Metheny for a better
description)
-Dave
David Kotschessa
> > appreciated, rather that having it, the older and more authentic the better,
> > playing in the living room adds to the credibility of the Camus book on the
> > coffee table or the Picasso on the wall. Better yet, Kerouac. I.e.,
> > intellectual.
>
> It cracks me up, when y'all(you know who you are) characterize jazz this
> way. Do you seriously think that this would improve someone's social
> cachet? I must have been grievously overlooked for the past thirty
> years. But don't stop, it's good for a laugh.
Of course it works. You just have to have an equally pretentious
circle of friends who will spot it. I think that's the point he was
trying to make. Fortunatly for me, I have about 3 friends, and they
can't find anything in my living room. This keeps my credentials at
an acceptable minimum.
-Dave
Jurupari
>less
>and less relevant to the music public?
more like the other way around. Pop music has dropped legit musical devices
like leprous limbs for decades. Five note chords went, modulation went, swing
went, chord progressions went, chords went, melody went. Now we have dancing,
samples and spandex....whoopee shit.
Jurupari
>> cachet? I must have been grievously overlooked for the past thirty
>> years
I think posers believe it. I honestly don't think jazz has any market at all
except for musicians and posers. You don't want to get involved in a discussion
of jazz with a person who loves jazz and doesn't play. I guess that WOULD be
good for a laugh if it's not your livelihood.
I hope I'm wrong - I'd desperately love to believe something else.
Clif Kuplen
icarusi
news:4589696c.0302...@posting.google.com...
What's jazz? Anything I think it is, and anything you think it is,
which isn't probably the same.
Icarusi
--
remove the 00 to reply
Scott McLoughlin
news:3e4cecda$1...@binarykiller.newsgroups.com...
standard
I think that's false. Almost anyone can play jazz music, if they want to -
and that includes pop musicians right alongside high school band members and
Woody Allen and armies of "weekend warriors" like me and lord only knows who
else.
Ella Fitzgerald sang pop tunes really well and later sang jazz tunes really
well. I don't have any trouble getting my mind around that. No inherent
contradiction at all.
Why do we perpetuate these silly myths that (1) jazz is some deep, mystical
and maybe even intellectual thing; (2) jazz is hard; and (3) in order to
"really" play jazz, someone has to "pay dues" eating shoe leather, sleeping
with their dog eared Real Book, running scales until 4:00 AM, devoting one's
entire life to this black art and generally foregoing life's other
pleasures.
Of course, you might have to work at it to be a virtuoso - sure. I'm not
saying that just anyone can play jazz well, but that's true of any kind of
music and not special to jazz one little bit.
But virtuosity is absolutely no prerequisite of authenticity. Never was,
never will be. Pete Townsend isn't as good a guitar player as Eddie Van
Halen or Jimmy Hendrix, but no one will deny that he isn't "really" playing
rock music.
Sit down with a guitar or whatever and bang out little 3-note-voiced
four-to-the-bar ii-V changes on "Satin Doll" and sing along or squeeze out a
little improv. That's playing jazz. Not playing well, but still the genuine
article.
Jazz is just a style of music, like classical and blues and country and
rock. If we want to get cynical, jazz might just be another crappy label
pasted over some of the CD bins at the music store.
But yes, the recent Rod Stewart stuff really, really sucks :-)
--
Scott McLoughlin, Chairman
The Adrenaline Group, Inc.
Pat Smith
Jazz was pop music when it was danceable. I don't think Brittany Spears
is any worse than The Starland Vocal Band (Afternoon Delight), Fabian,
Pat Boone, Patti Page, Julie London, Rosemary Clooney or pop singers of
any era. It's just that it doesn't last so we don't remember it. When
was the last time one of us played "How Much Is That Doggie In The Window"?
Kev
It's sad only if popularity is your goal and you're trying to do it by playing
jazz. For me, it just is what it is. Other than the financial complications
involved in earning a living through playing jazz, I personally couldn't care
less how popular my music (which isn't all strictly "jazz", btw) is with
the general public. I say that musicians _do_ get more out of their music than
nonmusicians do, but also that I don't even come close to appreciating other
art forms nearly as much as the practitioners of those arts, i.e. plays,
poetry, ballet, etc. Nor would I get as much satisfaction out of being an
architect as an architect would, or an astronomer, etc. It's not "sad", though,
just different strokes!
-Kevin
Jurupari
>rock.
bullshit.
Jurupari
>was the last time one of us played "How Much Is That Doggie In The Window"?
>
OK, I'm weird, but I actually play that song - grandchildren, neices, etc. I
reharmonize it a little, but they don't seem to mind...I do the Barney song,
too as I recently mentioned somewhere. Also Carmen Sandiego and Rubber Ducky.
Clif.
Mr.Will
Well, the other poster said show him something new, thats what's new, so best
be careful what you ask for maybe?
What you're saying is really the same as what I am saying - keeping things
there when you KNOW they aren't relevant is making oneself more irrelevant to
the general public.
Music is for everyone surely? Even if it is music you don't personally approve
of.
Mr.Will
>>rock.
>
>bullshit.
>
Jazz isn't a style of music? What do you suggest it is Cliff?
Scott McLoughlin
> It's a sad state of affairs. Jazz probably will never be "popular"
> because it takes some effort on the part of the listener to get
> anything out of it. I think most folks think of music very
I like to hear live jazz music and usually go to Twins or Blues Alley here
in DC. "Listening clubs" they call them, with stiff cover charges.
But now there's this place called HR57 in DC which has straight ahead live
jazz and is completely packed on weekend nights with young kids in their
20's. It costs just $7, but just as important I think, the kids are allowed
to talk. They drink and smoke and talk up a storm and listen to jazz music.
Like I said - the place is packed from around 11:00 onwards. Go figure.
Jazz at HR57 isn't popular in the sense of paying musicians good wages or in
the sense of the media hype machine. But it is definitely popular in the
sense of regularly packing a club chock full of young people who have a good
time and listen to jazz music.
Jurupari
>there when you KNOW they aren't relevant is making oneself more irrelevant to
>the general public.
Relevance to the general public is anathema to jazz as it is to any art form.
If most people like it, it's average by definition. Art isn't, or it just
isn't art.
Keep in mind I'm discussing this in the abstract, not vis a vis making a
living playing. I'll get to that.
If it's true to itself and practitioners pursue their vision of art in good
faith, it will almost certainly not be popular, which is what I take it you're
using here to gauge relevance.
I don't so long as we're talking about 'artistic relevance'. I think history
does that after we die and rot, so I don't worry much about it. Hm- that
probably makes me irrelevant...like I didn't already know.
A Big Mac may be more relevant than entrecotes marchand du vin because more
people have eaten them, but it's still a cheesburger, if you get my meaning.
>Music is for everyone surely? Even if it is music you don't personally
>approve
>of.
I don't judge music, just whether or not I want to be exposed to it.
I'd slightly modify that - if music is used to promote some sociopathic cause,
or to promote some kind of class stratification, I'd disapprove of that, but I
think you probably would too.
Of course, music is for everyone - even deaf people, surprisingly. ( I had a
group of totally deaf snowmobilers show up at a hotel gig one time. They
stayed all night, danced, clapped to the tunes in time and generally enjoyed
themselves. I was amazed.)
But jazz isn't for everyone. Maybe for no one but musicians, I don't really
know.
Mr. Will, if you want to play pop music, you don't need any endorsement, just
go play some and hopefully get you some money!
I did it for the better part of 25 years, and if I hadn't, I wouldn't have
been paid. There's no need whatsoever to be high-minded about it, and there's
no shame in enjoying it.
I'm divorced from pop, but we're on friendly terms and have joint custody of
the kids....
Besides, given the rate you've been advancing as a solo jazzer, you could make
Eric Clapton in about an hour and a half - you really ought to put some time
into it - it's fun and people enjoy it as you know.
Also as you know, as a professional, you have to be relevant enough to draw a
paycheck.
I've had a good time, even playing Elvis and Lionel Ritchie songs if the band
was good. Even when the bands weren't the money usually was, and that financed
my 'serious' efforts.
I mentioned somewhere today the effect that pop could have on some world class
musicians I was fortunate enough to be hanging around with - they were really
into it.
I've been lucky enough to have some incredible monsters sit in with bands I've
been in.
These Blue Note guys were into what we were doing - a free funk thing - it was
nowhere near the level of their stuff, i can just barely play that material
now, but they were definitely into it - they sought us out!
man does not live by entrecotes marchand du vin alone...not this one anyway.
Especially if you're sellin' the stuff - most people want cheeseburgers.
One more thought..
It was Mark Kleinhaut who said pop musicians can't play jazz, not me. If he
ever met Chip Crawford, he'd change his mind.
Chip was pianist for the Four Tops and Isaac Hayes and arranger for Teo
Macero.
If there's anything he can't do in music I don't know what it would be.
He has world class chops and ears and is as good at either pop or jazz as they
come.
Clif Kuplen
Jay Carlson
Nicely said Pete,
that's pretty deep coming from a guy who can't hear any differences in cords
:)
So YOU'RE the guy on the label of those jars of hot sauce I see on every
table at Southern roadside BBQ joints.
Jay
http://artists2.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Jay_Carlson/
Jurupari
>>rock.>
Jazz isn't a style of music? What do you suggest it is Cliff?
>Mr.Will
something other than the following absurdity, which is implied *per se* by such
a postulate along with the rest of that post, which you snipped:
Fabian, Boy George, Barbie Benton, Mrs. Miller, Wink Martendale, the
Chipmunks, Tiny Tim, Charles Manson (yes, that charles manson - he wrote a
beach boys tune) the singing nun, Cher, Sonny Bono, Gerry and the Pacemakers,
Donovan
=
Herbie Hancock, Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Wes Montgomery, Art Tatum,
Bird, Diz, Gil Evans Bill Evans, Chick Corea, Eric Dolphy
=
J.S. Bach, W. Mozart, Beethoven,
Brahms, Debussey, Ravel, Stravinsky, Bartok, Hindemith
bullshit.
Chuckk Hubbard
> > > Am I supposed to be happy about this? Is there a chance in hell that
> > > this could be the beginnings of some trend that might lead to a more
> > > widespread insterest in Jazz? Will it catch on? Would it be a good
> > > thing?
> >
> > Jazz is trendy already, which doesn't mean it's seriously pursued and
> > appreciated, rather that having it, the older and more authentic the
better,
> > playing in the living room adds to the credibility of the Camus book on
the
> > coffee table or the Picasso on the wall. Better yet, Kerouac. I.e.,
> > intellectual.
>
> It cracks me up, when y'all(you know who you are) characterize jazz this
> way. Do you seriously think that this would improve someone's social
> cachet? I must have been grievously overlooked for the past thirty
> years. But don't stop, it's good for a laugh.
I'm not sure what you just said, but my characterization is based on studies
of guys that did, in fact, get laid often and with various partners.
-Chuckk
Bill Williams
> If jazz musicians play music from the pop repertoire
> it's still jazz.
Well, maybe not 100% relevant but I caught Martin Taylor playing with
RnB with Bill Wyman's outfit on BBC Prime the other night.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/later/artists/s15/4/biog_billwyman.shtml
He didn't look 100% at ease, I thought, but seemed to be enjoying
himself a lot and played some great lines, perfectly within the idiom.
Not jazz though IMO.
Incidentally, the vocalist and piano player was Gary Brooker (Procul
Harum).
Bill Williams
Mr.Will
>>there when you KNOW they aren't relevant is making oneself more irrelevant
>to
>>the general public.
>
>Relevance to the general public is anathema to jazz as it is to any art form.
>If most people like it, it's average by definition. Art isn't, or it just
>isn't art.
>
I don't know, I see what you mean, but I feel artists have to have context to
keep them honest as it were.
Seeing all the pieces at the modern Tate etc. that consist of a cow in
formaldehyde or a big mac container stapled to sparkly paper, or a few bricks
arranged in a pattern, or two bulbs that switch on and off at intervals, and
being told that anyone who dares question it is somehow a Philistine......I
consider at best insulting and at worst the work of charlatans. I agree that
artists have to have the aim of being true to their art, but I also think they
have to have the aim of a more general empathy with the public or listeners.
Thats not to say everyone has to make smooth jazz records (and the amount of
times I've bought records by a name Ive heard only to hear a smooth jazz
record!), but its what I mean about going to schools, about working with people
- and spreading jazz and music, making it something people have the option to
listen to.
Theres some lady, and I forget her name, who is deaf but a great musician, who
feels vibrations and thats how she interprets music.....
That resume is great Clif, I think my only point is that I have NEVER seen the
different strands of music that are here and there, I see only MUSIC - and
whether or not I like it.
I play djembes and doundouns as well as a variety of samba percussion, and love
it just as much as doing guitar etc. though guitar is my first instrument. I
hear pop songs I like, and ones I dont like. I hear samba music I like, and
stuff I dont like. I hear jazz I like and jazz I dont like. Same goes with
classical..........hopefully in that mix somewhere I come, not a "jazz" player
or any such thing, but Mr.Will.....and it is what it is.
Pete Kerezman
wrote:
>
>"Pete Kerezman" <pete...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:3e4d3f85...@news.intcomm.net...
>> On 14 Feb 2003 11:39:30 -0600, "Mark Kleinhaut"
>> <markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Pat <pea...@insight.com> wrote:
>> >>>This whole thread goes back to "What is Jazz"?
>> >>
>> >
>> >That's easy, jazz is unpopular.
>> >
>>
>> It's a sad state of affairs. Jazz probably will never be "popular"
>> because it takes some effort on the part of the listener to get
>> anything out of it. I think most folks think of music very
>> differently than musicians do, and that they see it more as a
>> background soundtrack to their lives rather than an end in itself.
>>
>
>Nicely said Pete,
>that's pretty deep coming from a guy who can't hear any differences in cords
>:)
I didn't say I can't hear a difference, I said I was psychologically
incapable of paying $240 for a guitar cable. I can see it for
recording, but once your up on stage everything gets different anyway,
so the fancy cable becomes superflous.
>So YOU'RE the guy on the label of those jars of hot sauce I see on every
>table at Southern roadside BBQ joints.
No such luck. Maybe if I was I would be less reluctant to purchase
an overpriced cable. <G> Naw, "Texas" Pete happened because I noticed
when I first careened onto usenet that there's a whole lot of Petes in
the world. I wanted some way of letting folks know which one of us
was misspeaking. =8-()
Texas Pete
Joe Finn
news:3E4D8D44...@pacbell.net...
I think there is an important distinction to be made between what artists
like Brittany Spears, The Starland Vocal Band and Fabian do and the material
people like Rosemary Clooney might perform. The repertoire that a Rosemary
Clooney would sing was in general from the pages of the Great American
Songbook. Many of the songs were originally intended to be part of a show or
a movie. Some were tin pan alley songs too. Most of the composers of this
material were European immigrants born in the 19th century. Several
important contributors like the Gershwins, Kern and Berlin also happened to
be Jewish. This generation gave us a lasting, unique and distinct stylistic
statement. It has already endured for nearly a century. The universality of
many of these songs is undeniable and I'm sure people will still be singing
them, playing them and enjoying them long after we are all dead and gone.
African American influences like blues, spirituals, and a certain specific
vocabulary of polyrhythm and syncopation gave rise to a separate line of
development. Pioneers of early jazz and ragtime like Eubie Blake were
developing a statement that stood apart from the theatrical style. Today's
jazz straddles this divide in many ways.
Other African American forms like R&B and blues shuffles emerged into a sort
of third stream and by the 1950's rock and roll was, as they say, "here to
stay". I see this as a musical style distinct and apart both from jazz and
from the theatrical style. I would also argue that it is antithetical to the
greater tradition of American popular song and to jazz as well.
BTW, I've played "How Much Is That Doggie In The Window" during the past
year a couple of times. It also makes an ironic or humorous statement when
inserted as a quote within a solo. .....joe
--
Visit me on the web. www.JoeFinn.net
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Paul Pieper
> I always thought music was for everyone, even Rod Stewart, KD Lang etc. I
hate
> the snobbery that can be found in jazz, just like I hate the snobbery that
can
> be found in any musical style.
I have to agree with this sentiment, even if I'm not a big fan of Rod
Stewart. It gets really complex as a jazz musician sometimes, we all have so
much dogma and crap in our heads that keeps us from expressing ourselves
honestly through music. There's no rational reason to become upset when we
hear Rod Stewart singing standards, although I confess it tends to upset me
at times, mostly because I imagine Mr. and Mrs. America being titillated
senseless upon hearing it.
I dont know. I often think that our own personal psychologies are our
most powerful obstacle in the search to produce something lasting or great.
(please don't bring up that Kenny Werner book in response to this.)
If we have an idea in our head about what "real" music is, or the what
the "real" thing is, then that must necessarily conflict with that which is
uniquely ours to express, because given its uniqueness, its not going to
coincide perfectly with what is "real".
Although I too love a lot of the things that jazz musicians consider
"real" - i.e. Wayne Shorter, Coltrane, harmonically complex music, mod-ren
jazz, etc, etc, etc, I would love to see a community in which appreciation
of those things didn't automatically produce dogma and closed-mindedness -
although that is a little facile of me to say, because I too am capable of
thinking closed minded, dogmatic thoughts.
Of course at those times, you can always put your jazz CD's in a box (a
very big one) and just listen to Audioslave. ;)
Paul Pieper
Annie
talented kids who take up an instrument and really want to learn all
about music who eventually become contributors to discussions like
this....eventually they will seek out art music (classical and/or jazz)
and realize what crap passes for music today.....then they will feel
isolated among their peers.....sad, but true!! musicians play/compose
for other musicians, serious writers for other writers, etc.... this is
not limited to music, it is also a problem with the other
arts.....unless you are interested in a particular discipline and take
the time to appreciate and study it...(yes, it does take work!) it
remains undiscovered....this is a problem with popular culture.....it
always takes the path of least resistance. I have a wonderful (almost
starving) musician friend who teaches jazz bass and classical guitar.
He told me that once students find out that music is real work, they
quit. Besides, you can make a ton of money rapping or strutting around
half naked and not have to know a thing about music theory.
Nobody mentioned the media. I think there is a big problem here! Do
you ever really see any jazz or classical musicians perform on any of
the morning or late shows? (You used to, way back when...) How about the
Grammy's? Rarely...maybe a few minutes......yet all the hip-hop, pop
acts...are constantly on the boob tube. Maybe a few kids would be
inspired to hear a real musician vs. an intertainment act. The problem
is also that these entertainers are referred to as "musicians". A
misnomer if there ever was one!....the dumbing down continues.......
Jonathan Giblin wrote:
> pcsa...@pobox.com (paul) wrote in message news:<3e4d0cb6....@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
>
>>On 14 Feb 2003 05:55:20 -0800, dkots...@yahoo.com (David Kotschessa)
>>wrote:
>>I don't think it will. As jazz fans we like to hope so, but it never
>>ends up happening. it didn't happen with Ken Burns, Barry Manilow,
>>Woody Allen or any of the other things that are supposed to create a
>>widespread interest in jazz.
>>
>>It's my opinion that jazz, and art music in general, will continue to
>>be a niche music, because most people aren't able to hear and perceive
>>things that complex. until we educate our kids to understand music and
>>sound to the same degree they understand colors and shapes, there will
>>be no appreciation for art music.
>
>
> I agree up to a point, but it may be a little strong to say there will
> be no appreciation for art music. The biggest problem for both jazz
> and classical music is certainly the absense of music education and
> the dumbing down of our popular culture. If we could address that,
> we'd see a real increase in the popularity of these two musical forms.
>
> It's worthwhile to distinguish here between jazz and pop music. The
> great American songbook is pop music. It's more sophisticated pop
> music than what's currently in vogue, but it's still pop music. When
> Tony Bennett sings Witchcraft, that's a pop singer singing a pop song.
>
> Still, I'm glad to see more sophisticated pop music being performed
> and recorded, and I like Tony Bennett for what he is. These are, for
> the most part, great songs. And since the great American Songbook
> contains many songs that have become jazz standards, maybe a few
> people will eventually acquire a taste for a more sophisticated
> treatment of those songs. In the meantime, it's good that American
> music culture hasn't gone 100 percent hip hop just yet.
Jay Carlson
"Annie" <pars...@att.net> wrote in message news:3E4F0DF7...@att.net...
> I also agree that music education is most important. I think it is the
> talented kids who take up an instrument and really want to learn all
> about music who eventually become contributors to discussions like
> this....eventually they will seek out art music (classical and/or jazz)
> and realize what crap passes for music today.....then they will feel
> isolated among their peers.....sad, but true!! musicians play/compose
> for other musicians, serious writers for other writers, etc.... this is
> not limited to music, it is also a problem with the other
> arts.....unless you are interested in a particular discipline and take
> the time to appreciate and study it...(yes, it does take work!) it
> remains undiscovered....this is a problem with popular culture.....it
> always takes the path of least resistance. I have a wonderful (almost
> starving) musician friend who teaches jazz bass and classical guitar.
> He told me that once students find out that music is real work, they
> quit. Besides, you can make a ton of money rapping or strutting around
> half naked and not have to know a thing about music theory.
>
> Nobody mentioned the media. I think there is a big problem here! Do
> you ever really see any jazz or classical musicians perform on any of
> the morning or late shows? (You used to, way back when...) How about the
> Grammy's? Rarely...maybe a few minutes......yet all the hip-hop, pop
> acts...are constantly on the boob tube. Maybe a few kids would be
> inspired to hear a real musician vs. an intertainment act. The problem
> is also that these entertainers are referred to as "musicians". A
> misnomer if there ever was one!....the dumbing down continues.......
Welcome. it's nice to hear your thoughts, well said.
Jay
http://artists2.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Jay_Carlson/
Adam Bravo
> talented kids who take up an instrument and really want to learn all
> about music who eventually become contributors to discussions like
> this....eventually they will seek out art music (classical and/or jazz)
> and realize what crap passes for music today.....then they will feel
> isolated among their peers.....sad, but true!! musicians play/compose
> for other musicians, serious writers for other writers, etc.... this is
> not limited to music, it is also a problem with the other
> arts.....unless you are interested in a particular discipline and take
> the time to appreciate and study it...(yes, it does take work!) it
> remains undiscovered....this is a problem with popular culture.....it
> always takes the path of least resistance. I have a wonderful (almost
> starving) musician friend who teaches jazz bass and classical guitar.
> He told me that once students find out that music is real work, they
> quit. Besides, you can make a ton of money rapping or strutting around
> half naked and not have to know a thing about music theory.
>
> Nobody mentioned the media. I think there is a big problem here! Do
> you ever really see any jazz or classical musicians perform on any of
> the morning or late shows? (You used to, way back when...) How about the
> Grammy's? Rarely...maybe a few minutes......yet all the hip-hop, pop
> acts...are constantly on the boob tube. Maybe a few kids would be
> inspired to hear a real musician vs. an intertainment act. The problem
> is also that these entertainers are referred to as "musicians". A
> misnomer if there ever was one!....the dumbing down continues.......
So you think everyone should learn to appreciate good photography by putting
in lots of effort? Everyone should learn to appreciate good painting with a
lot of work? Everyone should learn about architecture to appreciate it?
Writing? Journalism? All the sciences to learn how the world around them
works? Economics? Everyone should know everything? I'd rather die than live
in that world.
Adam Gottschalk
Amen. I concur.
One thing that's interesting to me, that's related to another thread on
acoustic instruments in general, is this apparent trend, in some
circles, away from wanting to see live music. It's all about the DJ. For
most folks, live music takes plays at inhuman colliseums and
amphitheaters--you'd get a better view and feel for the show if you
watched it on TV.
As someone else was hinting at, you have to have experienced it to
understand the indescribable difference between being in the same room
with a double bass and hearing an electric or MIDI bass line. I do hope
that for some, anyway, there is indeed increasing popularity for
acoustic instruments.
Unfortunately I haven't been following the thread, but I say more power
to those (Mr. Will, Brad Meldhau, Dave Douglas, Cassandra Wilson, etc.,
etc.) who are aiming to take some pop music and "jazzify" it. AFAIC
that's what jazz has always been about.
Chuckk Hubbard
news:v4srgno...@corp.supernews.com...
Well stated- but there is still "good music" and "crap"; I didn't speak the
difference into existence. There is a fine line sometimes, but usually not.
I admit to having certain guilty pleasures, though; I grew up with the
Beastie Boys and will always sort of enjoy hearing them, and a few others.
-Chuckk
Paul Pieper
> So you think everyone should learn to appreciate good photography by
putting
> in lots of effort? Everyone should learn to appreciate good painting with
a
> lot of work? Everyone should learn about architecture to appreciate it?
> Writing? Journalism? All the sciences to learn how the world around them
> works? Economics? Everyone should know everything? I'd rather die than
live
> in that world.
Adam, your post was right on the money. This is exactly what a lot of these
jazzers/religious fanatics are saying.
Paul Pieper
David Kotschessa
Rod Stewart fans.
Let me get one thing clear. My dislike of pop music is not a function
of my being a musician. I've always disliked pop music. I was born
in 76 and I grew up in the 80s, hearing the pop music that was around,
without a frame of reference for what was music "before." Somehow
though, I had this feeling that there was something terribly wrong. I
guess I was a snob early. It wasn't until I was 13 that I even picked
up a guitar, and not until around 17/18 that I became interested in
jazz.
I find pop music is cliche and predictictable. You don't need to be a
jazz musician to see the patterns and formulas that are used to create
music. Rod Stewart's version of "These foolish things" contain not
one single element of music that I have not heard before. Pop songs
are created by juxtaposing a few lyrical and melodic elements that
have been used elsewhere, and throwing a new face/ass on them, and
selling them to the public. When I ask for "new" I simply ask for
something I haven't heard before.
And where did this rule come from that only jazz musicians can like
jazz? Or that only artists can appreciate art?
Appreciation of an art is not limited to those who study it. It helps
to be versed in one of those fields, but it's far from necessary.
When you learn to seek beauty in any one form, you simultaneously find
beauty in others. I have never studied art, photography,
architecture, or dance. I've learned how to observe closely and
listen carefully, and I learned it from music. Some have learned it
from programming, engineering, or medicine. Some of my best friends
who love jazz don't know a thing about it, but it speaks to them.
I have a (non-musician) friend who is infinitely smarter than I am.
He understands computers - whether it's programming, operating
systems, databases, graphics, in a way that nobody I have ever met
comes close too. He has more passion for it than anybody I've met.
I was the fortunate soul that got to be with him the first time he
heard Thelonious Monk. He found something when he heard it. He
identified with it. He took over the CD player and started hitting
the "back" button and replaying certain parts. I remember the first
measure of "There's danger in your eyes, Cherie." He couldn't get
over the last chord of the first measure of the song, and the way it
"resolved". (Of course he didn't express it in those terms). He kept
playing it over and over and saying "Oh my god! What's he DOING?!"
I'm not saying that only intelligent people can appreciate jazz
either. I'm just trying to expand the realm of "jazz lovers" to
include those outside the field. It would be a whole other discourse
to expand it further. I just think that loving music is just about
seeking patterns and finding beauty.
I suppose that when you learn to seek out the beauty in these things,
the obscene becomes much more offensive by contrast. Maybe that's my
problem. The function of the music that is popular today could very
well be to make me appreciate jazz and classical much more. Maybe
seeking to destroy it would be self-defeating since I would have to
find something to take it's place, were I successfull.
Nonetheless, it is still my enemy. If you choose to label it
snobbery, by all means, do so. The more the Queen Celine and the Pop
Army fights and throws it's Rods and Spears at me, the more I will be
empowered to find more beauty and create music. So bring it on.
-Dave
Sideways Jaye
etc. I hate
the snobbery that can be found in jazz, just like I hate the snobbery
that can
be found in any musical style."
Amen Brother Will.
All negative energy is just that, a waste of time. All the Diana
Krall bashing, the fusion bashing, why bother? Promote what you like,
ignore the rest, or at least just say you don't dig it.
I don't care for Rod Stewart singing standards, but so what? If
someone hears his version of a tune and digs deeper into the
repertoire and the tradition, what's the harm? I don't buy the
apocalyptic vision of this that David K. laid out. Hey, if a few more
Kenny G fans go out and support great jazz in a desperate attempt to
be hip, it's still supporting great jazz.
Way back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I owned a couple Wes
Montgomery albums and the Charlie Christian Columbia compilation on
vinyl. They were guitar records to me and didn't really get me
digging into jazz in general. For some reason, Grover Washington Jr.
did that. Within a year of getting into Grover, I had progressed
right through Stanley Turrentine, George Benson and Freddie Hubbard's
CTI stuff on to Miles, Trane, Dolphy and Morgan.
Then I promptly went through my little jazz snob phase and looked down
on "funk jazz" like Grover for a while. Didn't take me too long to
pull my head out of my butt and realize that there was a lot of
enjoyment in all kinds of music, including rock, which I had
temporarily abandoned. Some folks on this board just don't seem to
get that. While I defend to the death their right to that opinion, I
think it's a shame, and, when they rain on other folks' parade,
downright annoying.
By the way, Rod Stewart absolutely kicked ass on Jeff Beck's "Truth,"
a great rock guitar album, and also on "Gasoline Alley" and the Faces'
"Wink is as Good as a Nod."
IvanDRodriguez
want.....LOL.
Ivan
Jurupari
>Army fights and throws it's Rods and Spears at me, the more I will be
>empowered to find more beauty and create music.
Nice one, Dave!!
Joe Finn
news:4589696c.03021...@posting.google.com...
Good post David. I would be interested to know what you think about the
differences between the pop music that emerged from the musical theatre
tradition of and the kind of music that emerged from the rock tradition. The
genesis of each of these two styles seems very distinct to me.
David Kotschessa
>I don't buy the
> apocalyptic vision of this that David K. laid out.
Show me where I did that. I missed it.
the one who loves not hates
>the repertoire was worth drawing from. I don't see a lot of people
>drawing from "today's pop" (Yes, Herbie tried) to come up with any
>good jazz.
Being only 21 and having many many many years of great jazz standards come and
go before my time I always like to hear a new take on a standard or a standard
that is a bit obscure. Obscure in the sense of not many jazz players play it
any more because everyone of those standards is obscure to my generation.
Except New York, New York and anything else that may be on their mom and dad's
token Sinatra album. I'd rather hear a good vocal version of Polkadots and
Moonbeams instead of Stella by Starlight.
tim
Sideways Jaye
the "back" button and replaying certain parts. I remember the first
measure of "There's danger in your eyes, Cherie." He couldn't get
over the last chord of the first measure of the song, and the way it
"resolved". (Of course he didn't express it in those terms). He kept
playing it over and over and saying "Oh my god! What's he DOING?!""
Yep, I remember smokin' that same stuff.
Kev
worrying about
the rest of it. Besides there are plenty of musicians who would laugh
at the
idea of jazz being an elite art form, which can rightfully look down
upon other
styles of music. For them, jazz sounds like noodling over the same
32/64 bars
over and over and over, using chromatic melodic material that was
developed
between 1940 and 1960. To their ears, today's jazz (straight-ahead,
avante, whatever "advanced" style you like) is a tired and simplistic
rehashing of
the great stuff being played 40-60 years ago, just with a couple new
timbres and
maybe the licks being played in a different order.
I don't hold this view, but I'm friends with some composers who simply
hear
jazz that way. Personally, I'm not into Rod Stewart (except maybe
South Park's
pretty _cutting_ take on him, a couple New Years' ago...), but that
just means
I don't care about his music. Any emotional investment on my part,
beyond
indifference, is simply not worth it, and distracts me from making
music of my
own.
Jurupari
>hear
>jazz that way
What do you think of their compositions?
I remember having a very interesting discussion with Charlie Byrd years ago
about modern composers - his views on what some of them were doing was
surprisingly similar.
His beef was mainly that the post Stravinsky bunch frequently weren't really
even hearing what they were writing, and he made a pretty convincing case for
it over about half an hour.
To me, improv and composition are separate skills with separate standards.
Composers do look down on improvisers frequently, but I think it's because
they can't 'compose' that metaphysical attribute that improv has and comp
doesn't and that gives them lifelong anxiety unless they try to belittle it.
Clif
thom_j.
"the one who loves not hates" <ih8u...@aol.comiloveHMR> wrote in message
news:20030216141337...@mb-mo.aol.com...
> >At least
> >the repertoire was worth drawing from. I don't see a lot of people
> >drawing from "today's pop" (Yes, Herbie tried) to come up with any
> >good jazz.
>
> Being only 21 and having many many many years of great jazz standards come
and
> go before my time I always like to hear a new take on a standard or a
standard
> that is a bit obscure. Obscure in the sense of not many jazz players play
it
> any more because everyone of those standards is obscure to my generation.
I am 55 and I subscribe to your above comments too tim.. I tend to get
more into any new way (or obscure as you state) of old standards from
the 1920s to whenever and I like the new pieces done too. Such as the
many that Pat Metheny, Benson, Carlton, Burton, etc. etc. do, & many
others that are unkown at times. Isnt this what improv' or recomposing
jazz is all about as in regards of the essence of all jazz?
Imho, locking yourself into "one era" of repertoire becomes bland and
somewhat of a dichotomy of what jazz is all about to me aka "improv'
pioneering" and trying new things that push yourself and imagination..
cheers t.j. 8^)
thom_j.
"Jurupari" <juru...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030216151636...@mb-me.aol.com...
Clif, you know I am not a combatant, but I have always felt & still do
that "improv" is "on the fly composing" and many have ended up with
pieces via "improv." So, again in essence we're composing as we are
"improv'ing"... dont ya think? cheers tee'jay...
thom_j.
> Nonetheless, it is still my enemy. If you choose to label it
> snobbery, by all means, do so. The more the Queen Celine and the Pop
> Army fights and throws it's Rods and Spears at me, the more I will be
> empowered to find more beauty and create music. So bring it on.
>
> -Dave
Just a short Addendum David, I have been 'blessed' to have both
graphic arts, and music (art) as a big part of my life.. Graphic arts
was my main chosen career and I was fortunate' enough to teach
graphic art in many esteem colleges (& not so esteem) trade and
high schools. Plus even some mentally, and physically challenged
arenas of education, and it always amazed me that *all* students
had more imagination, creativity & mindset to create some of the
finest pieces I've ever seen, and I have been to many of the best
Art Museums in the world..
My point? All! the arts' extend to everyone! I've always deeply
subscribed to 'never' close my eyes, ears, nor mind to anyone's
work! Its just amazing what many so called unknowns come up
with no matter what background, talent, life-style, etc. etc. that
they may, or may not have. imho.... cheers thom_j.
IvanDRodriguez
..that's cool too. Why spend so much energy being an "enemy" and hating
something, just because it's not up your alley.
Some idiot has his finger on the "button" right now. Do you think he gives a
fuck about Pop artists trying to sing/play jazz?
Lifes to short man....don't sweat the small stuff......
Ivan
PS..... that's JMO....of course....:)
Jurupari
>Clif, you know I am not a combatant, but I have always felt & still do
>that "improv" is "on the fly composing" and many have ended up with
>pieces via "improv." So, again in essence we're composing as we are
>"improv'ing"... dont ya think?
Yes, I do - I'm not a legit composer but when I do it, it's from an
'improviser's' point of view. There may be a better way, but I don't know it.
I just get time to consider the moves, and later to refine them, but for me,
it's all from an improvisory 'data base' for want of a better word - I should
add that the crap I write has a high degree of polyphony, but it's still just
my mind improvising at 16 2/3 or lower.
Clif
David Kotschessa
> Upset or Gratefull? Neither...So what .... let them sing whatever the heck they
> want.....LOL.
>
> Ivan
Well, everybody is basically right. I should just calm down really.
I know that.
I think I feel about most pop music much the same way I feel about
prostitution. It's a bit of a gross way to make a living, but who am
I to get upset about it?
-Dave
thom_j.
I clearly understand Clif, but to me, you are definately composing.. :8^)
cheers tee'jay..
>
thom_j.
"David Kotschessa" <dkots...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4589696c.03021...@posting.google.com...
Hey David K.. Are you nuttz?? My best babes are working woman
on the night!!! :8^)
IvanDRodriguez
on the night!!! :8^) >
Somehow.....I knew you would comment on that one Thom......LOL.
Do they deliver?......LOL
Ivan
thom_j.
Btw: yes they deliver, and if they aint here in a 1/2.hour it's free!
yummmmmmmmmmmmmmy tee'jay
"IvanDRodriguez" <ivandro...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030216200957...@mb-fn.aol.com...
IvanDRodriguez
Btw: yes they deliver, and if they aint here in a 1/2.hour it's free!
yummmmmmmmmmmmmmy tee'jay >
LMAO.....just like Dominos....
Ivan
Annie
You don't HAVE to bother to learn anything!! All I was trying to say
is that
if you take the time to learn something about a particular art form or
science
or any subject for that matter, you certainly will get more out of it
and probably appreciate it much more. Stay ignorant, and ....blissful???
David Kotschessa
> differences between the pop music that emerged from the musical theatre
> tradition of and the kind of music that emerged from the rock tradition. The
> genesis of each of these two styles seems very distinct to me.
> ....joe
>
Good topic!
The trick here is defining pop. Because, as somebody pointed out to
me today, I like Billy Joel's earlier stuff, as an example. But to
me, Billy Joel was not of the "pop genre" but rather Rock music that
became popular of it's own merit. So, to me, popular does not equal
pop music.
The pop that I dislike the most is that which has seemed to detach
itself from all other genres. It's the pop "style." It's the pop
which is the product of record companies rather than musicians. Most
of us could sit down and write a pop tune tonight, but it may or may
not be popular tomorrow.
You'd really need somebody more versed in musical theatre than me to
explain this. I think that musical theatre created a kind of
mythology. There's stories, there's a sort of lingo that goes with
each drama. This is what provided the material for the music then,
and I think that's where the songs get their mystique. There's so
much drama behind some of these songs that you probably won't
understand without at least knowing the words to them, or ideally
seeing the whole play/movie.
But has pop music today emerged out of rock, or has it just continue
to evolve on it's own since the musical tradition? It's too confusing
really. Many of the musicians who I would have at one point
considered "popular rock" are now pop. Rock didn't have a lot of
these mystical elements to start with. It was stripped down, raw, and
primal. When you take away those primal elements to make it more
palatable and politically correct, you get something that sounds like
the old pop music, which has some elements of rock left-over.
Rock as a genre continued to evolve in other directions, of course.
ADD to those primal elements the same elements you find in jazz or
classical music, and you get Led Zepplin, as one example. Take away
all traces of progressiveness and you get punk (which in some circles,
really came first, as there was some punk in the 50s). Add more
primal elements, more progressive elements and you get
super-progressive metal bands like Dream Theater or Testament.
Well, I'm starting to sound like an academic, so I'll shut it!
-Dave
Mr.Will
>news:4589696c.03021...@posting.google.com...
>> Quite a fascinating thread this turned out to be. I even upset some
>> Rod Stewart fans.
>>
>> Let me get one thing clear. My dislike of pop music is not a function
>> of my being a musician. I've always disliked pop music. I was born
>> in 76 and I grew up in the 80s, hearing the pop music that was around,
>> without a frame of reference for what was music "before." Somehow
>> though, I had this feeling that there was something terribly wrong. I
>> guess I was a snob early. It wasn't until I was 13 that I even picked
>> up a guitar, and not until around 17/18 that I became interested in
>> jazz.
>>
Thats cool. I was born a year before and went through alot of the same.
However, I NEVER got into the classifications of music. There is great music
and there is crap music, in whatever category one decides to put things in.
>> I find pop music is cliche and predictictable. You don't need to be a
>> jazz musician to see the patterns and formulas that are used to create
>> music. Rod Stewart's version of "These foolish things" contain not
>> one single element of music that I have not heard before. Pop songs
>> are created by juxtaposing a few lyrical and melodic elements that
>> have been used elsewhere, and throwing a new face/ass on them, and
>> selling them to the public. When I ask for "new" I simply ask for
>> something I haven't heard before.
>>
Exactly what made you want to listen to Rod Stewart's versions of anything?
As for not hearing anything new, what exactly is new about playing things over
a set of changes with a set of jazz rules?
What you have written above may appear to be totally valid to readers of this
newsgroup, but I started as a classical player and it was great, but at times
there was an underlying air of superiority over other forms of music, which I
fought tooth and nail against. In fact my teacher's biggest insult was to say
"yeeeuch, that sounds like JAZZ", but at the time I was listening to Brubeck,
Bill Taylor, Martin Taylor etc. AS well as David Bowie, Michael Jackson etc. -
I didn't even KNOW there were categories. There were things I liked and things
I didn't.
So I despised any of the pretentions that classical players were superior to
other musicians. The general image painted of jazz players was that of pot
smoking or alcoholics who lacked the discipline to play a tune in the way
composed, using improvising and going "out there" as a cover for their lack of
technique, as well as being a pot bellied bunch who'd just alter the chords of
a score for no reason etc. etc. All of which are unfair.
Then many years later I get into jazz, not because of all the history etc. of
it, but simply because I like alot of the music etc. and I seem to keep coming
across the same themes of superiority over other musical forms. To me this is
the same distasteful attitude that unless challenged becomes accepted and
perpetuated around and around.
All music is hard at the highest level. Right now I'm listening to "The perfect
circle" - funk band and sure you can write off the simplicity of the parts,
like Niles Rodgers & Edwards records, but they too have their beauty and hard
things associated with them.
I will not buy into all this jazz is superior and needs to be done in a certain
way, because music surely cannot be like that. To me thats the biggest loss of
all.
Mr.Will
Guitar and Vocal duo
www.sarahandwill.co.uk
Mr.Will
>itself from all other genres. It's the pop "style." It's the pop
>which is the product of record companies rather than musicians. Most
>of us could sit down and write a pop tune tonight, but it may or may
>not be popular tomorrow.
Thats interesting because I find that sort of record company branded stuff very
easy to spot, yet when I buy unwittingly a "SMOOTH JAZZ" album cut by a
supposed "jazz artist" that infuriates me more.
Of course the artist has to make money etc.
Would you regard Diana Krall as a product of the record companies? It could be
argued both ways.
IvanDRodriguez
guitar player plays awesome jazz"....I'd never heard her, so I thought...what
the heck...
Musically, infuriate is not a word I'd use, but money wise...yeah...LOL . I was
pissed that I spent 12 bucks on a CD that I thought was gonna be "my
jazz"....but it wasn't . It was "her" jazz....
I didn't like the CD, and have only listened to it once. But the artist is
doing what she does best, and making money at it. I can't fault her for
that.....
Ivan
Kev
> >I don't hold this view, but I'm friends with some composers who simply
> >hear
> >jazz that way
>
> What do you think of their compositions?
>
What I've heard I've liked, so far.
> I remember having a very interesting discussion with Charlie Byrd years ago
> about modern composers - his views on what some of them were doing was
> surprisingly similar.
>
> His beef was mainly that the post Stravinsky bunch frequently weren't really
> even hearing what they were writing, and he made a pretty convincing case for
> it over about half an hour.
>
> To me, improv and composition are separate skills with separate standards.
>
> Composers do look down on improvisers frequently, but I think it's because
> they can't 'compose' that metaphysical attribute that improv has and comp
> doesn't and that gives them lifelong anxiety unless they try to belittle it.
>
> Clif
Yeah, it's hard to thing that dogma, in any direction, is coming from
any kind
of healthy, level-headed place. One guy in particular is one of those
dudes who
is very _anti-_, and very seldom _pro-_, you know? So, big grains of
salt when
he's talking.
They are separate skills, sure, but the one thing I've learned from
these anti-
jazz-types, as with jazzers who are exceptionally snobby about certain
very
distinct types of jazz, is to just say, "whatever" and listen to
sounds that
appeal to me, and maybe try and make some sounds along those lines, in
writing
and in playing. Not to get all Kenny Werner on you guys, but I find it
to be, at age 28, a refreshingly childlike stance to take, much more
than the
hardened, adultlike mindset I had when I was as ignorantly dogmatic as
the
friends I talked about, at age 20 or so. Or maybe this is actually
more of an
adult mindset. **Whatever**!! ;)
-Kevin
-Kevin
Max Leggett
Monkees' I'm A Believer, and it rocked, It was good. For anyone
fortunate enough not to have heard The Monkees, allow me to asssure
you that they sucked the big kahoona. They mimed playing, their
singing was all pose and no cojones, and the studio musicians who did
their recordings had only the faintest idea of what rock and roll was
about. Insipid drivel. But the thing I heard on the radio today was
played and sung with passion, the guitars cooked, and it was great.
For a Monkees cover.
Jurupari
radio music
. I think of rock, country, r&b, anything with a mass audience and an industry
that has arisen to capitalize on it as pop.
The parameter is whether or not it's for mass consumption, or 'popular'. If
it's going to be popular, then it had better appeal to the taste of the average
person. So, I think of 'average' as being part of the definition.
Most people associate it with their earliest love or sex experiences and that
usually remains their preferred music for life if they're not in the business
of performing. I definitely remember what was on the radio the first time, well
you know..
One can play the same game with classical musicians that they do with jazz
musicans - they're nothing more than recitalists, idealess anal retentive
typists who focus on the shoestrings of music and have no creative ability or
are ostracized by their peers if they display any, ineffectual sheltered
cowards who never had to fight or put their lives on the line to play, etc and
you can do about the same with radio music players - I classify music as the
kind I want to play and the rest. In the rest, some I want to hear and some I
don't.
But seriously, to me, the interests and discipline that motivates a person
toward being a classical player is very different from the types of interest
and discipline that serves as motivation for playing jazz.
A person may have one or the other or both, but I perceive them as being very
different.
As to pop, or radio music or whatever, it's mainly oriented for mass
consumption, and entertainment. That relieves a lot of any obligation to make
complex musical statements, and in fact that's usually undesirable.
It may be elegant in its simplicity, but usually isn't. The best it usually
gets is 'catchy' meaning a non musician finds it tricky but followable.
There's usually a 'hook' which is designed to stay in the memory. And it's
disposable to most people - there'll be another one from the artist as soon as
that one stops selling.
Also the market for new radio music is always young people. There's never been
a suddenly emerging hot middle age genre, I don't think.
I don't know how much people like Yanni and Zamfir and Boxcar Wille and Enya
get middle aged people psyched up, maybe more than I know, but that seems to
be more TV music than Radio music.
I never felt I fit into any of it too well, but I love to play and still do,
but get too hungry for dinner at eight and I never bother with material I hate.
Clif
Jurupari
>hardened, adultlike mindset I had when I was as ignorantly dogmatic as
>the
>friends I talked about, at age 20 or so.
I don't know - as you go on in life and see all your oxen getting gored, maybe
'whatever' is not so bad. Especially if what you really mean is 'live and let
live'.
One thing for sure, people sure as hell have strongly held views on music -
that should probably make us all feel important even if people say we suck!
:o)
Clif
thom_j.
"IvanDRodriguez" <ivandro...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030216203155...@mb-fn.aol.com...
Joe Finn
> The trick here is defining pop.
In the broadest of all possible strokes, there are two major trends here.
First came the theatrical/tin pan alley wave which was followed by rock.
> Because, as somebody pointed out to
> me today, I like Billy Joel's earlier stuff, as an example. But to
> me, Billy Joel was not of the "pop genre" but rather Rock music that
> became popular of it's own merit.
Funny you mention him. Back in the 1970's just after Billy Joel left a band
called the Hassels [they sucked] it was my great misfortune to attend one of
his performances. He did a blues on piano and sang a chorus like John Wayne
followed by a chorus like Ed Sullivan. I shit you not. I wasn't sure if he
was a mediocre impressionist who couldn't play piano or a mediocre pianist
who couldn't do impressions. It was gawdawful. I have successfully avoided
listening to him since then.
>So, to me, popular does not equal pop music.
Bingo! This is a big point. The nomenclature breaks down a bit here. The
Boston Pops play pop music. So does Brittany Spears. So does Liza Minnelli.
There are also country acts who are more or less pop oriented. The group
[and I can't name them] that was on the Superbowl broadcast is a good
example. The worlds of classical, country, rock and traditional mainstream
pop all use the same term! This is a marketing ploy. It's pop; you know it,
you love it, you buy it. I say they are all distinct genres. Each has
fundamentally different roots. We don't really have different names for them
but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. Marketeers just like us to
think that way.
>
> The pop that I dislike the most is that which has seemed to detach
> itself from all other genres. It's the pop "style." It's the pop
> which is the product of record companies rather than musicians. Most
> of us could sit down and write a pop tune tonight, but it may or may
> not be popular tomorrow.
Overproduction is indeed a problem. I can always hear it when the actual
artistic decisions have been usurped by the suits. In his heyday Sinatra was
producing some of the most satisfying pop recordings of all time. The
sessions were essentially live in the studio. No overdubs or editing. Just
great material, great arrangements, great musicians and a singer who could
stand and deliver a timeless and definitive interpretation. Having Nelson
Riddle around didn't hurt either.
> You'd really need somebody more versed in musical theatre than me to
> explain this. I think that musical theatre created a kind of
> mythology. There's stories, there's a sort of lingo that goes with
> each drama. This is what provided the material for the music then,
> and I think that's where the songs get their mystique. There's so
> much drama behind some of these songs that you probably won't
> understand without at least knowing the words to them, or ideally
> seeing the whole play/movie.
The Gershwins, Cole Porter, Irving Berlin, Harry Warren, Harold Arlen, and
others were writing theatrical material that was subsequently picked up by
jazz players. A lot of us find out about this part of the repertoire in
reverse. You might play a tune like "Have You Met Miss Jones?" and then find
out it's by Rodgers & Hart. Working backwards you could then discover the
wealth of material they have left at your doorstep:
LOVER
FALLING IN LOVE W/LOVE
WHY CAN'T I ?
SMALL HOTEL
BLUE MOON
IT NEVER ENTERED MY MIND
MY ROMANCE
MOUNTAIN GREENERY
WISH I WERE IN LOVE AGAIN
YOU TOOK ADVANTAGE
MOST BEAUTIFUL GIRL IN THE WORLD
FUNNY VALENTINE
[how's that for a set list?]
> But has pop music today emerged out of rock, or has it just continue
> to evolve on it's own since the musical tradition? It's too confusing
> really. Many of the musicians who I would have at one point
> considered "popular rock" are now pop. Rock didn't have a lot of
> these mystical elements to start with. It was stripped down, raw, and
> primal. When you take away those primal elements to make it more
> palatable and politically correct, you get something that sounds like
> the old pop music, which has some elements of rock left-over.
>
> Rock as a genre continued to evolve in other directions, of course.
> ADD to those primal elements the same elements you find in jazz or
> classical music, and you get Led Zepplin, as one example. Take away
> all traces of progressiveness and you get punk (which in some circles,
> really came first, as there was some punk in the 50s). Add more
> primal elements, more progressive elements and you get
> super-progressive metal bands like Dream Theater or Testament.
Rock doesn't interest me. It's common and vulgar.
>
> Well, I'm starting to sound like an academic, so I'll shut it!
Not at all! You make some excellent points and it's nice to have a fresh
perspective around here. .......joe
Visit me on the web. www.JoeFinn.net
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Richard Bornman
Would you care to mention some pop
stuff that you do like?
I find pop a very interesting area...I have always been
fascinated with what makes an infectious tune.
I grew up hearing the beatles, and after I began getting
acquainted with how music works, I started dismantling
beatle tunes, to try to find out what it was that was
"infecting" me.
Why was it that certain verses or choruses/parts were
so "catchy" while others less so...
For me, I discovered that the "pleasure zone" tended to be
activated when there was some kind of subtle intersection
between european diatonicism and the blues...
The Beatle's "I feel Fine" would be an example...
Any thoughts on this?
Richard
tomw
wshe...@aol.com says...
> . I
> hear pop songs I like, and ones I dont like. I hear samba music I like, and
> stuff I dont like. I hear jazz I like and jazz I dont like. Same goes with
> classical..........hopefully in that mix somewhere I come, not a "jazz" player
> or any such thing, but Mr.Will.....and it is what it is.
>
>
> Mr.Will
>
>
So how is this consistant with your previous judgement that if one hears
Rod Stewart singing standards, and doesn't like it, they are therefor a
"jazz snob"?
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
tomw
dkots...@yahoo.com says...
> tomw <tw...@cornell.edu> wrote in message news:<MPG.18b707ae8...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
> > In article <zOa3a.190$hj.1...@nnrp1.ptd.net>, chu...@paonline.com
> > says...> >
> > > Jazz is trendy already, which doesn't mean it's seriously pursued and
> > > appreciated, rather that having it, the older and more authentic the better,
> > > playing in the living room adds to the credibility of the Camus book on the
> > > coffee table or the Picasso on the wall. Better yet, Kerouac. I.e.,
> > > intellectual.
> >
> > It cracks me up, when y'all(you know who you are) characterize jazz this
> > way. Do you seriously think that this would improve someone's social
> > cachet? I must have been grievously overlooked for the past thirty
> > years. But don't stop, it's good for a laugh.
>
>
> Of course it works. You just have to have an equally pretentious
> circle of friends who will spot it. I think that's the point he was
> trying to make. Fortunatly for me, I have about 3 friends, and they
> can't find anything in my living room. This keeps my credentials at
> an acceptable minimum.
>
> -Dave
>
Keep up the good work, Dave. Don't let the infidels get you down!
tomw
juru...@aol.com says...
> > Do you seriously think that this would improve someone's social
> >> cachet? I must have been grievously overlooked for the past thirty
> >> years
>
> except for musicians and posers. You don't want to get involved in a discussion
> of jazz with a person who loves jazz and doesn't play. I guess that WOULD be
> good for a laugh if it's not your livelihood.
>
> I hope I'm wrong - I'd desperately love to believe something else.
>
> Clif Kuplen
>
I discuss jazz with non-players(Miles' term: "non-playing
m*********ers") all the time, and I find it credible. The difference is
that we are dealing with the aesthetic of the listener, and not the
technical aspects. I do find it amusing -- in the bad sense, with the
tension headache, and the churning stomach -- when non-players get
judgemental about stuff that they are not really equipped to discuss.
Mr.Will
>wshe...@aol.com says...
>> . I
>> hear pop songs I like, and ones I dont like. I hear samba music I like, and
>> stuff I dont like. I hear jazz I like and jazz I dont like. Same goes with
>> classical..........hopefully in that mix somewhere I come, not a "jazz"
>player
>> or any such thing, but Mr.Will.....and it is what it is.
>>
>>
>> Mr.Will
>>
>>
>
>So how is this consistant with your previous judgement that if one hears
>Rod Stewart singing standards, and doesn't like it, they are therefor a
>"jazz snob"?
I don't recall saying that, my point was about certain folk (of ANY musical
genre) looking down on others.
Seems almost like choosing to go find something to get upset about when someone
goes out of their way to listen to Rod Stewart singing jazz don't you think?
tomw
says...
> > It cracks me up, when y'all(you know who you are) characterize jazz this
> > way. Do you seriously think that this would improve someone's social
> > cachet? I must have been grievously overlooked for the past thirty
> > years. But don't stop, it's good for a laugh.
>
> I'm not sure what you just said, but my characterization is based on studies
> of guys that did, in fact, get laid often and with various partners.
>
> -Chuckk
>
Then I respectfully submit that it was not the beret, thelonius monk on
the stereo, and Dharma Bums on the coffee table that made it work. By
the way the previous post sounds much more serious and bitter than I
intended. It was really just a light-hearted bid for chuckles.
tomw
says...
>
snip
If we have an idea in our head about what "real" music is, or the what
> the "real" thing is, then that must necessarily conflict with that which is
> uniquely ours to express, because given its uniqueness, its not going to
> coincide perfectly with what is "real".
> Although I too love a lot of the things that jazz musicians consider
> "real" - i.e. Wayne Shorter, Coltrane, harmonically complex music, mod-ren
> jazz, etc, etc, etc, I would love to see a community in which appreciation
> of those things didn't automatically produce dogma and closed-mindedness -
> although that is a little facile of me to say, because I too am capable of
> thinking closed minded, dogmatic thoughts.
Good words.
Mark Kleinhaut
tomw <tw...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>>
>Then I respectfully submit that it was not the beret, thelonius monk on
>the stereo, and Dharma Bums on the coffee table that made it work. By
>the way the previous post sounds much more serious and bitter than I
>intended. It was really just a light-hearted bid for chuckles.
>
>--
>Tom Walls
>the guy at the Temple of Zeus
>http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
Gee Tom, don't you buy your pheremones on-line?
Info and soundclips about:
"Chasing Tales":
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Chasing%20Tales.html
"Amphora":
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Amphora.html
"Secrets of Three": http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/SO3.html
tomw
>
> Nobody mentioned the media. I think there is a big problem here! Do
> you ever really see any jazz or classical musicians perform on any of
> the morning or late shows? (You used to, way back when...) How about the
> Grammy's? Rarely...maybe a few minutes......yet all the hip-hop, pop
> acts...are constantly on the boob tube. Maybe a few kids would be
> inspired to hear a real musician vs. an intertainment act. The problem
> is also that these entertainers are referred to as "musicians". A
> misnomer if there ever was one!....the dumbing down continues.......
>
>
television, where I could see Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Woody Herman,
Buddy Rich, Ella Fitzgerald, Sara Vaughn, etc. on a regular basis. It
took repeated exposure before it dawned on me that they were doing
something other than limning the melody. You don't even see Diana Krall
or Pat Metheny(to name two of jazz's crossovers) on network tv.
tomw
says...
>
> So you think everyone should learn to appreciate good photography by putting
> in lots of effort? Everyone should learn to appreciate good painting with a
> lot of work? Everyone should learn about architecture to appreciate it?
> Writing? Journalism? All the sciences to learn how the world around them
> works? Economics? Everyone should know everything? I'd rather die than live
> in that world.
>
>
>
that an appreciation of any given subject is increased proportional to
your knowledge of that subject. Fer crissakes.
tomw
wshe...@aol.com says...
snip
> Seems almost like choosing to go find something to get upset about when someone
> goes out of their way to listen to Rod Stewart singing jazz don't you think?
> Mr.Will
>
> Guitar and Vocal duo
> www.sarahandwill.co.uk
>
I get your point, but one doesn't have to go out of their way to hear R.
Stewart singing standards. He will be advertised in all the media, be
booked on primetime television, and played on the radio. I managed to
hear a couple of tunes from the recording without any effort on my
behalf. I did manage to exert the effort to raise the remote before he
got to the bridge, but not before I heard predictable, corny phrasing
and missed notes(blithely ignored is more like it). Now hearing Sheila
Jordan -- *that* takes some effort!
David Kotschessa
> "David Kotschessa" <dkots...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > Because, as somebody pointed out to
> > me today, I like Billy Joel's earlier stuff, as an example. But to
> > me, Billy Joel was not of the "pop genre" but rather Rock music that
> > became popular of it's own merit.
>
> Funny you mention him. Back in the 1970's just after Billy Joel left a band
> called the Hassels [they sucked] it was my great misfortune to attend one of
> his performances. He did a blues on piano and sang a chorus like John Wayne
> followed by a chorus like Ed Sullivan. I shit you not. I wasn't sure if he
> was a mediocre impressionist who couldn't play piano or a mediocre pianist
> who couldn't do impressions. It was gawdawful. I have successfully avoided
> listening to him since then.
I think he had a heavy metal band at one point too. I'd be quite
interested in hearing it actually. I think he was a great lyrical
philosopher of a time period and of subjects that other people didn't
get into. I classify him under "bard." He sang about "stuff." His
mainstream music has become pretty dry, but I understand he is
composing classical music these days. (Now there's another tough one
to define, can you really compose classical music these days or could
you only do so during the classical period? That's a whole new can of
worms).
> > The pop that I dislike the most is that which has seemed to detach
> > itself from all other genres. It's the pop "style." It's the pop
> > which is the product of record companies rather than musicians. Most
> > of us could sit down and write a pop tune tonight, but it may or may
> > not be popular tomorrow.
>
> Overproduction is indeed a problem. I can always hear it when the actual
> artistic decisions have been usurped by the suits. In his heyday Sinatra was
> producing some of the most satisfying pop recordings of all time. The
> sessions were essentially live in the studio. No overdubs or editing. Just
> great material, great arrangements, great musicians and a singer who could
> stand and deliver a timeless and definitive interpretation. Having Nelson
> Riddle around didn't hurt either.
No comment necessary, since you're exactly right on here.
Might I ask for any reading material where you find out about stuff
like this? Specifically, the people that wrote these tunes, and for
what purpose, and their context in theatre if any is of interest to
me.
You know I actually feel like a fraud sometimes when I play "My Funny
Valentine," which I consider to be one of my favorite songs to play?
I still think I'm missing the spirit of the tune since I've never seen
it in context. Same with a lot of the other tunes.
> Rock doesn't interest me. It's common and vulgar.
Damn right it is! That's exactly why it does interest me. I don't
listen as much as I used to. I imagine many of us started there.
Want to watch me become really unpopular really quickly? The first
music I ever was into as a kid was country. (I grew up in the 80s and
felt I had no choice). I had the records lying around. George Jones,
Kenny Rogers... the "real" country. I can't even stand it now, much
less the "new" country.
Common, simple music has it's rightful place, so long as it has
something to say. Rock and folk musicians are our modern day
minstrels and bards. Some of them just have more hair and makeup.
> > Well, I'm starting to sound like an academic, so I'll shut it!
>
> Not at all! You make some excellent points and it's nice to have a fresh
> perspective around here. .......joe
Thanks! It's nice to not upset people now and then.
-Dave