What jazz needs is some soul!
Jack A. Zucker
Manifesto project because to me this is a fusion of Soul, Jazz, R&B
and Hiphop that really works. It's one of the first fusion records
I've heard that truly swings and is hip enough to listen to
intellectually, yet has a groove you can dance to which afterall, is
how jazz started in the first place.
Sometimes, I get bored with the purely intellectual approach to jazz.
Jazz has to have groove *AND* intellect.
Jaz
Bluesbird2000
This is Vince from my office.
Jack, this is one of my pet peeves.
Jazz does not - by defintion - need to be boring. That's why I love what
Rodney is doing and I even dig some of the so-called jam bands for the same
reason. They have rediscovered the Hammond organ and are laying down some
beats - most of them have not developed the harmonic sophistication of Rodney
but he shows us what can be done.
Jazz does not have to be a "dead" art form studied by intellectuals.
The music - IMHO - has great flexibility built on a tradition of absorbing
influences and then pushing the envelope.
I heard Herbie Hancock discussing this topic. I dare say this topic is a
preoccupation of his. The interviewer was trying to get him to discuss his
straight ahead jazz CD with Trumpeter Jordan and then he brightened up when he
got a chance to discuss his CD Future 2 Future which explores this theme - with
hip-hop, and rap.
Man, I'm glad you brought this up, because we need to discuss it.
Why can't jazz be popular?
One young group that the young folks dig is Soulive who play in venues like the
9:30 club in DC. Granted, they are not as sophisticated as R. Jones but they
are also about 23 years old.
Quietly, Soulive, Dennyson and the Tiny Universe, and R. Jones are developing a
following - not to mention Brother Scofield.
I am not advocating the abandonment of traditional jazz. I am simply saying
that we should include these new ideas and encourage them. They are expanding
the universe of folks who dig jazz - which is a good thing, I think!
Okay, I will shut up.
Regards,
Vince
paul
wrote:
>
>Sometimes, I get bored with the purely intellectual approach to jazz.
>Jazz has to have groove *AND* intellect.
>
have you ever checked out the gene harris quartet? I *love* gene's
bag.
--paul
William C.
"paul" <pcsanwa...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:i5lg60tljvskdpo1s...@4ax.com...
Last time I checked out Gene was at the Lighthouse, Hermosa Beach... That is
why, that is why, that is why, that is why, you're overweight.....
>
> --paul
William C.
"William C." <misterw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c49mgl$2eo0nh$1...@ID-216853.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "paul" <pcsanwa...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:i5lg60tljvskdpo1s...@4ax.com...
> > On 29 Mar 2004 07:42:06 -0800, j...@jackzucker.com (Jack A. Zucker)
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >Sometimes, I get bored with the purely intellectual approach to jazz.
> > >Jazz has to have groove *AND* intellect.
> > >
> >
> > have you ever checked out the gene harris quartet? I *love* gene's
> > bag.
>
> Last time I checked out Gene
Make that EDDIE Harris.... this aging thing....
thom_j
Kneel Jung
appreciation
and appetite for Rodney Jones' world and Kurt Rosenwinkel .
When I say an appetite, I think that is more key than an appreciation, which
more often
than not is merely a certain polite respect.
We live in an age when we have access to all kinds of music, and it' hard
enough to
keep up with it, suggesteing that an entire genre of music called Jazz be more
one
way or another . If it wasn't called Jazz would people like it more ?
Maybe; because many have a preconceived notion of what they think they like or
don't like about Jazz . But then that could be said for ROCK music also .
Putting the *right* rhythmic elements into one's music so that you can pull in
the masses
and still get away with some hip tritone subs or polytonality isn't the answer
.
The answer, IMO is letting those that dig Tony as much as Bernard Purdie ..
Kurt R as much as Wes, George, or Rodney J all have an equal audience.
They don't have an equal audience, becaue not enough people have or will
develop
an appetite for for a variety of approaches .
Scofield;s new-found fan base/broader audience, might not dig his earlier Blue
Note
dates with Lovano and Bill Stewart . They may have in fact checked it out and
said:
" Yikes, I like his new stuff .. it's his best .. "
Scofield always played with soul, but then I don't define it the same why as a
lot of
people would .
The Jazz as dance music thing is tiresome, in that you can dance to about
anything
if you want to . Monk danced to his music ? .
I'm tired of the inference that Jazz pushed it's audience away .
There's a lot more to these issues I think than Jazz needs some soul .
Dave
bob r
at j...@jackzucker.com wrote on 3/29/04 10:42 AM:
> Sometimes, I get bored with the purely intellectual approach to jazz.
What would be an example of "purely intellectual" jazz? If someone's playing
music at all, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that
they're feeling something, obvious or not.
> Jazz has to have groove *AND* intellect.
There are all kinds of ways to groove. You can play Mozart and groove.
What jazz needs is more people willing to just do whatever comes honestly
from their hearts... and more people willing to listen.
--
Bob Russell
http://www.bobrussellguitar.com
CD available: http://www.cdbaby.com/bobrussell
Formerly Sideways
Jack - I'm glad to see you reiterate this. I don't know if you
remember, but in a January thread about Rodney, several posters made
disparaging remarks about Rodney's "Soul Manifesto" approach. One
poster went so far as to say, "I thought he would return to playing or
making > real jazz guiatr CDs."
Everybody's got a right to their opinion, but I think Soul Manifesto
is a great cd. I'm not crazy about the rapping on the Live cd, but
the playing still grooves like mad.
Bluesbird2000
>appreciation
>and appetite for Rodney Jones' world and Kurt Rosenwinkel .
AGREED
>Putting the *right* rhythmic elements into one's music so that you can pull
>in
>the masses
>and still get away with some hip tritone subs or polytonality isn't the
>answer
>.
DISAGREED. I think that many jazz guys for many reasons (too many to list)
eschew anything that may strike a popular vibe or beat, almost as if, to
incorporate anything from the popular culture would somehow cheapen or weaken
their claim to producing jazz. If you listen carefully to some of the beats in
Go-Go, hip-hop, Rap you may be truly surprised at the roots of those beats.
Why have we - in general - reached the conclusion that absolutely none of this,
nada, zilch is worthy of incorporating or using in our precious art form jazz?
By doing this, we have built a wall between ourselves and the rest of the
world. I'm saying that it would behoove us to look on the other side of the
wall from time to time with an open mind.
>The Jazz as dance music thing is tiresome, in that you can dance to about
>anything
>if you want to . Monk danced to his music ? .
To me this statement is indicative of the sentiment that I think needs
adjustment. Count , Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker - to name a few, made people
dance with complicated rhythms and great jazz music in structure and form. My
Mom used to demonstrate this (rather provocative) dance called the "Mooche" -
guess where it came from? The vast majority of folks could care less about the
structure of a song if it sounds good, and/or makes them feel good. I remember
the collective gasp in the jazz world - I was a DJ back then - when Miles put
that album out "Big Fun" and God Forbid, college kids who would not know a
dominant chord from a diminished chord were dancing. Funny thing is he released
the album in 1969 and suddenly it was rediscovered a few years later and
started selling like hot cakes. I remember the traditional jazz world was
shocked. But, let me tell you who was playing on this danceable album: Jack
DeJohnette, Sonny Fortune, Carlos Garnett, Herbie Hancock, Bennie Maupin, John
McLaughlin, Wayne Shorter, Steve Grossman, Chick Corea, Joe Zawinul, to name a
few. I don't see anything "tiresome" about the album or that group of
musicians.
>I'm tired of the inference that Jazz pushed it's audience away .
It's a fact. Jazz has pushed it's audience away. Period. You may be tired of it
but it's true. Jazz moved in one direction and the audience has gone in the
other. Most music - except classical - faced with this dilemma take a daring
step - find a way to meet the audience half-way without completely evisorating
the music.
>There's a lot more to these issues I think than Jazz needs some soul
AGREED. But, you know what - music should be heard! It's not a bad thing. It
wouldn't hurt if Jazz guys would remember where the music started - it used to
make folks dance in seductive ways. It was hot. Jazz music has forgotten how to
be "hot." I think we need to remember the roots of afro-cuban rhythms to set
the table for our well thought out lyrical lines.
Thom, stop me, please!
Peace,
Vince
Jurupari
>be "hot." I think we need to remember the roots of afro-cuban rhythms to set
>the table for our well thought out lyrical lines.
>
I'm told that in Brazil, the music is still mainly in the clubs. It's always
felt that way to me as a listener. There are lots of afro and latino grooves
that meld beautifully - the caribe stuff works with all that, and it's all sex
music to put it plainly - the more of that in any any mix in jazz from the US
mainland doesn't ever seem to have hurt it.
It's kind of horrifying to think that the caption of this thread was what it
is, considering where the name 'jazz' came from in the first place. We're
living in a very strange and comparitively sterile world, it seems.
Clif Kuplen
Kneel Jung
>What would be an example of "purely intellectual" jazz? If someone's playing
>music at all, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that
>they're feeling something, obvious or not.
AGREED.
>There are all kinds of ways to groove. You can play Mozart and groove.
Yup. and My favorite part is below :
>What jazz needs is more people willing to just do whatever comes honestly
>from their hearts... and more people willing to listen.
>--
AGREED, again, Bob.
That's all I was attempting to say in
my post; but it was misinterpreted .
Dave
Jack Zucker
the problems in my opinion.
--
Web: www.jazguitar.net
Book: www.sheetsofsound.net
Endorsements: www.jazguitar.net/endorsements.htm
Soundclips: www.soundclick.com/2/jackzuckermusic.htm
"Kneel Jung" <knee...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040329144345...@mb-m18.aol.com...
Jack Zucker
> There are all kinds of ways to groove. You can play Mozart and groove.
I never said otherwise.
> What jazz needs is more people willing to just do whatever comes honestly
> from their hearts... and more people willing to listen.
Agreed but I can't do anything about having people more willing to listen.
That ain't gonna happen. People say they know what they like but they really
like what they know. Rodney's music speaks to people on the level of what
they know, yet says something.
William C.
"Jack A. Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote in message
> how jazz started in the first place.
red light ladies, booze, drugs, dice... like it or not. As I've said before,
the speach patterns still in place to this day in New Orleans...."mmmmmmm,
baby.... shake it... look at ch'ass.".....
Necessary Disclaimer: not all early jazz musicians were whore-mongers,
alkies, patent medicine guzzlers, gamblers.
> Sometimes, I get bored with the purely intellectual approach to jazz.
When bop came out, took over, I can hear a Dixieland purist going on about
how bop isn't jazz, the product of self-absorbed hop heads....
Necessary Disclaimer: not all early boppers were tortured hypes.
Some were happy hypes.... JUST KIDDING!
William C.
>
> "Jack A. Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote in message
>
> > how jazz started in the first place.
>
> red light ladies, booze, drugs, dice... like it or not. As I've said
before,
> the speach patterns
and that other thing, SpEEch patterns... that too
Pete Kerezman
wrote:
>The notion that it's the audience's fault that jazz is suffering is one of
>the problems in my opinion.
Jack, I believe you've hit the camel right on the hump, both in the
subject line and with this remark.
Texas Pete
Pat Smith
And of course let's not forget Les McCann and Eddie Harris, also funky stuff
Vince McKnight
> There are all kinds of ways to groove. You can play Mozart and groove.
> What jazz needs is more people willing to just do whatever comes honestly
> from their hearts... and more people willing to listen.
Bob,
No one can disagree with that statement. But, what have jazz musicians done
to reach the audience? Have jazz musicians strayed too far from the roots of
jazz - which used to be popular and hot? The fact that "more people" are not
"willing to listen is in part due to jazz musicians and the approach to the
music. God knows, I love jazz and I respect the hard work and dedication of
all those folks who make their living doing this. But, I talk to people,
regular folks, and folks tell me that jazz has lost touch. Me, I am going to
listen. I love jazz. But, it does not hurt to think about this disconnect
and realize that it is partly due to a lack of punch, zest, zip that the
average guy can relate to without thinking.
Maybe true genius is the ability to speak on many levels at the same time.
Shakespeare mastered the art of the multilayered statement.
Maybe jazz musicians need to learn how to do the same.
Max Leggett
If they do that, the Jazz Police tell them they've sold out.
Gerry
<juru...@aol.com> wrote:
> >It was hot. Jazz music has forgotten how to
> >be "hot." I think we need to remember the roots of afro-cuban rhythms to set
> >the table for our well thought out lyrical lines.
>
> I'm told that in Brazil, the music is still mainly in the clubs. It's always
> felt that way to me as a listener. There are lots of afro and latino grooves
> that meld beautifully - the caribe stuff works with all that, and it's all sex
> music to put it plainly - the more of that in any any mix in jazz from the US
> mainland doesn't ever seem to have hurt it.
I think it's about dance in Latin and Brazilian musical circles. They
can still dance to a lot of that. And much of that many musicians
would say wasn't "really" jazz.
> It's kind of horrifying to think that the caption of this thread was what it
> is, considering where the name 'jazz' came from in the first place. We're
> living in a very strange and comparitively sterile world, it seems.
I was always crazy for funk in the 70''s and 80's and had a hard time
getting other players to get with it. Sometimes it was cool and then
the whole "Disco Sucks" sloganeering got going. Which trapped most
funk it's racist net. Not to say that disliking bona fide Van McCoy
and K.C and the Sunshine Band Disco was in itself racist. Just that
most of my white friends--as soon as they heard a popping base they'd
start carping. That period really bummed me out.
--
First they gerrymander us into one-party fiefs. Then they tell us they only
care about the swing districts. Then they complain about voter apathy.
-- Gail Collins
Gerry
<pete...@aol.com> wrote:
> >The notion that it's the audience's fault that jazz is suffering is one of
> >the problems in my opinion.
>
> Jack, I believe you've hit the camel right on the hump, both in the
> subject line and with this remark.
Then explain it to me. Whose fault is it that jazz is "suffering", and
why?
Gerry
<blues...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > There are all kinds of ways to groove. You can play Mozart and
> > groove. What jazz needs is more people willing to just do whatever
> > comes honestly from their hearts... and more people willing to
> > listen.
>
> No one can disagree with that statement. But, what have jazz
> musicians done to reach the audience?
Played the only music we know and love the only way we know and love to
do it? Are we supposed to do something more? What is that? Wear a
cute costume or make the songs shorter?
> Have jazz musicians strayed too far from the roots of jazz - which
> used to be popular and hot?
Are you saying the are?
> The fact that "more people" are not "willing to listen is in part due
> to jazz musicians and the approach to the music. God knows, I love
> jazz and I respect the hard work and dedication of all those folks
> who make their living doing this. But, I talk to people, regular
> folks, and folks tell me that jazz has lost touch.
Okay then, what do we do to "remedy' it?
> Me, I am going to listen. I love jazz. But, it does not hurt to think
> about this disconnect and realize that it is partly due to a lack of
> punch, zest, zip that the average guy can relate to without thinking.
>
> Maybe true genius is the ability to speak on many levels at the same
> time.
>
> Shakespeare mastered the art of the multilayered statement.
>
> Maybe jazz musicians need to learn how to do the same.
A cool metaphor. But how do we implement that?
Jack Zucker
news:290320041939344835%222...@spam.really.sucks...
> In article <fkah601egfankihcl...@4ax.com>, Pete Kerezman
> <pete...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >The notion that it's the audience's fault that jazz is suffering is one
of
> > >the problems in my opinion.
> >
> > Jack, I believe you've hit the camel right on the hump, both in the
> > subject line and with this remark.
>
> Then explain it to me. Whose fault is it that jazz is "suffering", and
> why?
Certainly not the audience. As musicians, we have to remember who the music
is for. If we want to be elitist and play for ourselves, we shouldn't whine
about nobody wanting to listen to us.
Jurupari
>getting other players to get with it. Sometimes it was cool and then
>the whole "Disco Sucks" sloganeering got going.
I was about done with funk by the early seventies - still played it, but not
like the insane stuff we were gettng into in the late sixties - by the time
white people were hip to it, it was way too late.
I think I started to feel disco encroachment around 1975, but by then the
bands I was working in were taking on a country and world music tone on top of
all the bar band R&B stuff.
The harmolodic funk or whatever you'd call it period was over by then, but
Chick did win a grammy around then, so not everything was awful.
Also all the homeys I was doin' the crazy shit with were in famous bands by
then and getting dumbed down on recordings by A&R men who didn't wanna hear no
'space music'.
Clif
Max Smith
> As musicians, we have to remember who the music
> is for.
The music is "for" whoever you decide it is for. If you play simply to
express yourself, to work out on the guitar what your gut, heart, and
mind tell you is *you* and needs to be expressed, so be it, and if one
person (you) or ten people or a thousand people or a million people also
respond to it, that's great, too - as long as it's *you* they are
responding to.
I think a problem often starts when you try to guess what's going to
make that one million people respond, and you start trying to outguess
them and yourself, by grafting onto what is *you* a bunch of
Frankenstein parts that you think people want. And in many cases this
may actually work (though I have my doubts that people who succeed this
way are unconflicted deep down, with who they become).
My name is Max Smith and I approve this message.
\|/
@ @
--------------------------------------------------oOO-(_)-OOo----------
okpo
of his technique, ability and good Jazz, and other straight ahead players, I
still go home to George Benson. Also notwithstanding that Martin Taylor
plays fantastic mainstream Jazz, he also incorporates all that is soulful,
bluesy, hop-like. Martin Taylor plays breath taking jazz lines at any pace
and he has lots of it out there. Awesome!news:2f33c43f.04032...@posting.google.com...
> I'd like to know how successful Rodney Jones is with his Soul
> Manifesto project because to me this is a fusion of Soul, Jazz, R&B
> and Hiphop that really works. It's one of the first fusion records
> I've heard that truly swings and is hip enough to listen to
> intellectually, yet has a groove you can dance to which afterall, is
>
> Jazz has to have groove *AND* intellect.
>
thom_j
Bob Agnew
"paul" <pcsanwa...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:i5lg60tljvskdpo1s...@4ax.com...
> On 29 Mar 2004 07:42:06 -0800, j...@jackzucker.com (Jack A. Zucker)
> wrote:
> >
> >Sometimes, I get bored with the purely intellectual approach to jazz.
> >Jazz has to have groove *AND* intellect.
> >
>
Bob Agnew
"Jack A. Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote in message
news:2f33c43f.04032...@posting.google.com...
> I'd like to know how successful Rodney Jones is with his Soul
> Manifesto project because to me this is a fusion of Soul, Jazz, R&B
> and Hiphop that really works. It's one of the first fusion records
> I've heard that truly swings and is hip enough to listen to
> intellectually, yet has a groove you can dance to which afterall, is
> how jazz started in the first place.
>
> Sometimes, I get bored with the purely intellectual approach to jazz.
> Jazz has to have groove *AND* intellect.
>
> Jaz
Bob Agnew
Bob Agnew
put on some Lou Donaldson. Ahhhhhhhhhh.
Bob Agnew
"Bob Agnew" <rag...@cox.net> wrote in message news:5I8ac.28733$wl1.16516@fed1read06...
Gerry
<j...@jazguitar.net> wrote:
> > > >The notion that it's the audience's fault that jazz is suffering
> > > >is one of the problems in my opinion.
> > >
> > > Jack, I believe you've hit the camel right on the hump, both in
> > > the subject line and with this remark.
> >
> > Then explain it to me. Whose fault is it that jazz is "suffering",
> > and why?
>
> Certainly not the audience. As musicians, we have to remember who the
> music is for.
This is debate numer #12. I don't think music is an object like shoes
I get paid for cobbling together to someone else's satisfaction for a
set price. If you do, I don't have a problem with that. It's the same
masked argument that it has to have a dollar value to have any value.
> If we want to be elitist and play for ourselves, we shouldn't whine
> about nobody wanting to listen to us.
"Elitist" is an agitprop hammer. How low on the food chain do you have
to go to not be elitist? Goat-ropers in a road-house with a bandstand
covered with chicken wire playing Porter Wagoner? Otherwise I'm
bourgeois?
I love funk, I've always loved and played various kinds of pop, blues,
rock, and vocal musics. "Just folks" like it and I do too. But it's not
jazz, and I like jazz too. If I want to please people and that's my
central focus, II'd play pop vocal musics, wouldn't I? Otherwise I'm
denying the audience their due, no?
Gerry
<juru...@aol.com> wrote:
Oh it was still out there I think in the late 70's. But it settled
back into black-only radio formats. But then, I loved all that slick
stuff in the 80's too.
Gerry
currently running off the listening audience? I wanted to check some
of that stuff out.
Vince McKnight
> I love funk, I've always loved and played various kinds of pop, blues,
> rock, and vocal musics. "Just folks" like it and I do too. But it's not
> jazz, and I like jazz too.
Jazz has influenced all other forms of music, no one complains about it, no
one denies it. However, Jazz will not allow itself to influenced by anyother
form of music. Why? Why?
Vince McKnight
> >
> > No one can disagree with that statement. But, what have jazz
> > musicians done to reach the audience?
>
> Played the only music we know and love the only way we know and love to
> do it? Are we supposed to do something more? What is that? Wear a
> cute costume or make the songs shorter?
That is a typical response to a serious question. It assumes that the public
is stupid and will only respond to "cute costumes" and "shorter songs" If
you listen to Rodnye Jones, Scofield, and Soulive and others, you may not
like it, fine. But, at least, they are considering the question.
> > Have jazz musicians strayed too far from the roots of jazz - which
> > used to be popular and hot? Are you saying the are?
I am saying that that there is a disconnect between jazz and the public and
part of that disconnect comes from jazz musicians not communicating in a
basic way - making more music that makes folks want to dance. They don't
have to dance. But, some of the music has to make them want to. Music that
makes them want to dance dirty. Music that is seductive and emotional. Can
you do that and still the 6th minor pent over the Maj7th blurring the root ?
Jack Zucker
Melvin's playing?
--
Web: www.jazguitar.net
Book: www.sheetsofsound.net
Endorsements: www.jazguitar.net/endorsements.htm
Soundclips: www.soundclick.com/2/jackzuckermusic.htm
"Bob Agnew" <rag...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5I8ac.28733$wl1.16516@fed1read06...
Jack Zucker
reasons these threads get into shoving contests.
What do you propose to bring the music back Gerry? Educate the public as to
how great us jazz guitarists really are and how horrible Britney is?
--
Web: www.jazguitar.net
Book: www.sheetsofsound.net
Endorsements: www.jazguitar.net/endorsements.htm
Soundclips: www.soundclick.com/2/jackzuckermusic.htm
"Gerry" <222...@spam.really.sucks> wrote in message
news:290320042307382418%222...@spam.really.sucks...
tomw
222...@spam.really.sucks says...
> In article <20040329233143...@mb-m18.aol.com>, Jurupari
> <juru...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >I was always crazy for funk in the 70''s and 80's and had a hard time
> > >getting other players to get with it. Sometimes it was cool and then
> > >the whole "Disco Sucks" sloganeering got going.
> >
> > I was about done with funk by the early seventies - still played it, but not
> > like the insane stuff we were gettng into in the late sixties - by the time
> > white people were hip to it, it was way too late.
> >
> > I think I started to feel disco encroachment around 1975, but by then the
> > bands I was working in were taking on a country and world music tone on top of
> > all the bar band R&B stuff.
> >
> > The harmolodic funk or whatever you'd call it period was over by then, but
> > Chick did win a grammy around then, so not everything was awful.
> >
> > Also all the homeys I was doin' the crazy shit with were in famous bands by
> > then and getting dumbed down on recordings by A&R men who didn't wanna hear no
> > 'space music'.
>
> Oh it was still out there I think in the late 70's. But it settled
> back into black-only radio formats. But then, I loved all that slick
> stuff in the 80's too.
>
>
Johnson, the Crusaders, Rick James, Cameo, etc. were all selling real
big in the black community in the late 70s.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
tomw
says...
>
> Maybe true genius is the ability to speak on many levels at the same time.
>
> Shakespeare mastered the art of the multilayered statement.
>
> Maybe jazz musicians need to learn how to do the same.
>
>
>
tomw
222...@spam.really.sucks says...
traditional forms of jazz need not be replaced by something more
contemporary and user-friendly; but, rather, supplemented by it.
Gerry
<blues...@comcast.net> wrote:
I don't know about your jazz but mine has been influenced mightily by
Latin and Brazilian musics, R&B and rock.
Gerry
<blues...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > No one can disagree with that statement. But, what have jazz
> > > musicians done to reach the audience?
> >
> > Played the only music we know and love the only way we know and
> > love to do it? Are we supposed to do something more? What is
> > that? Wear a cute costume or make the songs shorter?
>
> That is a typical response to a serious question. It assumes that the
> public is stupid and will only respond to "cute costumes" and
> "shorter songs" If you listen to Rodnye Jones, Scofield, and
> Soulive and others, you may not like it, fine. But, at least, they
> are considering the question.
It assumes none of that. I didn't state what musics or players I
didn't like. And no one has stated how it is that musicians are
supposed to "better" reach the audience.
> > > Have jazz musicians strayed too far from the roots of jazz -
> > > which used to be popular and hot? Are you saying they are?
>
> I am saying that that there is a disconnect between jazz and the
> public and part of that disconnect comes from jazz musicians not
> communicating in a basic way - making more music that makes folks
> want to dance.
The problem with jazz today is that it isn't a dance music then? I
think that's fair. You can certainly make it more universally
appealing if it were a dance music.
> They don't have to dance. But, some of the music has to make them
> want to. Music that makes them want to dance dirty. Music that is
> seductive and emotional. Can you do that and still the 6th minor
> pent over the Maj7th blurring the root ?
--
Gerry
<j...@jazguitar.net> wrote:
> > Did we ever find out who did that bad "intellectual" jazz, that's
> > currently running off the listening audience? I wanted to check some
> > of that stuff out.
> Why do you always stoop to this level of sarcasm Gerry? This is one of the
> reasons these threads get into shoving contests.
There was no sarcasm in the statement. I meant it explicitly: Have you
stated who performs this intellectual jazz? You, yourself said it was
running audiences off. And I would indeed like to check it out.
I think one of the reasons some of these threads get into shoving
contests is because someone takes it upon themselves to preach to us
what we ought do and what we oughta think, about what we oughta
consider our problems. I've always rankled at that.
> What do you propose to bring the music back Gerry? Educate the public as to
> how great us jazz guitarists really are and how horrible Britney is?
Now THAT was indeed sarcasm. But unlike your reluctance to say what
"intellectual" jazz is, I'll be glad to answer: I don't purpose to
bring the audience back. Their growth and attrition is just how it
works.
The audience for any style of music comes and goes. And many of the
more rigid styles settle into a groove. There are certainly less people
listening to dixieland, a particularly audience-accomodating music,
than there were in the 50's I assume.
One of the difficult things about jazz and growing jazz audiences is
the vast disagreements among listeners and artists over what jazz is.
Lots of stuff gets called rock-jazz, jazz-rock, pop-jazz, trad-jazz and
on and on. Product definition and niche definition are important
things and once muddied are difficult to pull apart for an audience
that can point to what they like and don't like, but can't name it.
Gerry
<tw25R...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> Parliment/Funkadelic, the Gap Band, Chic, Roy Ayers, the Brothers
> Johnson, the Crusaders, Rick James, Cameo, etc. were all selling real
> big in the black community in the late 70s.
And moving into the 80's there was Jeffrey Osborne, Philip Bailey,
Luther Vandross, Kool and the Gang, Bootsy's Rubber Band (on occasion),
Franky Beverly and Maze, and many others.
Kneel Jung
>This is debate numer #12. I don't think music is an object like shoes
>I get paid for cobbling together to someone else's satisfaction for a
>set price. If you do, I don't have a problem with that. It's the same
>masked argument that it has to have a dollar value to have any value.
so true,, so true ..
>
>"Elitist" is an agitprop hammer. How low on the food chain do you have
>to go to not be elitist? Goat-ropers in a road-house with a bandstand
>covered with chicken wire playing Porter Wagoner? Otherwise I'm
>bourgeois?
>
LMAO !!!!
Very humorously stated, but, so true .
Dave Williams
Jack Zucker
> > What do you propose to bring the music back Gerry? Educate the public as
to
> > how great us jazz guitarists really are and how horrible Britney is?
>
> Now THAT was indeed sarcasm. But unlike your reluctance to say what
> "intellectual" jazz is, I'll be glad to answer: I don't purpose to
> bring the audience back. Their growth and attrition is just how it
> works.
No it wasn't. It was an extrapolation of your and several other folks'
opinions on the subject. I just threw in the pop idols as references to
illustrate my point.
Gerry
<tw25R...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> > > Maybe true genius is the ability to speak on many levels at the same
> > > time.
> > >
> > > Shakespeare mastered the art of the multilayered statement.
> > >
> > > Maybe jazz musicians need to learn how to do the same.
> >
> > A cool metaphor. But how do we implement that?
> >
> >
> By paying attention to format, methinks. Consider for a moment that
> traditional forms of jazz need not be replaced by something more
> contemporary and user-friendly; but, rather, supplemented by it.
Cool, but how do we do that?
Jurupari
>Johnson, the Crusaders, Rick James, Cameo, etc. were all selling real
>big in the black community in the late 70s.
That's what I mean - the ho hum four of this and eight of that in the same key
stuff won. There was an edge to funk in the beginning that was incredible, but
not recorded anywhere I know. Those bands were the ones that the big guys used
to drop by and sit in with when I was startin' out. The hypno and acid jazz
stuff I've heard are a sort of mimic of it, but it's like a gekko to T Rex -
those older and unfortunately undocumented funk things took no prisoners.
Clif
tomw
222...@spam.really.sucks says...
> In article <MPG.1ad34797...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, tomw
> <tw25R...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > Maybe true genius is the ability to speak on many levels at the same
> > > > time.
> > > >
> > > > Shakespeare mastered the art of the multilayered statement.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe jazz musicians need to learn how to do the same.
> > >
> > > A cool metaphor. But how do we implement that?
> > >
> > >
> > By paying attention to format, methinks. Consider for a moment that
> > traditional forms of jazz need not be replaced by something more
> > contemporary and user-friendly; but, rather, supplemented by it.
>
> Cool, but how do we do that?
>
>
working musician contemplating a future in the business, I would
investigate the market closely and see what there might be in the way of
musical tools to work with. All the popular musics seem to be
rhythmically much more hip than they were a decade or two ago, and most
make some space for an instrumental break. I would also be attentive to
present the music in a way that highlights its greatest appeal. A more
general audience isn't likely to be captivated by extended solo breaks,
but a soloist can communicate a lot in a chorus or two. Both the form
and the audience need to be treated with respect. I often hear that
"jazz is never going to be the popular music again", but I think if you
gave them something with a good groove and passion, you might be
surprised.
William C.
"Jack Zucker" <j...@jazguitar.net> wrote in message
news:TvudnamepIQ...@adelphia.com...
> Thanks for the link Bob. What are some good cds to pick up with lots of
> Melvin's playing?
I had the Texas Twister lp back in the 70s
William C.
Quincy's, "Walking In Space?"
"Jack Zucker" <j...@jazguitar.net> wrote in message
news:TvudnamepIQ...@adelphia.com...
Pete Kerezman
wrote:
>Did we ever find out who did that bad "intellectual" jazz, that's
>currently running off the listening audience? I wanted to check some
>of that stuff out.
Jim Hall and Mark Kleinhaut, to name a couple. But I sure can't
call it "bad" or claim that it's running anybody off. It may however
be "inaccessible" to the average Joe, simply because it requires
intelligence, attention and thought to listen to and be able to hear
what's happening. It's "concert" jazz, and like I've said on other
occasions, I don't "get" alot of it but sure can respect and enjoy it.
However, I feel that there's also a place for accessible jazz. I
think if someone could again produce exciting jazz that *makes* folks
dance they'd really be on to something.
It's really about jazz maturing as an art form, which apparently is
taking it in a brainiac direction. Which is okay provided you can
accept the fact that most of the world ain't brainiacs so you're
playing for a limited audience.
Texas Pete
Pete Kerezman
wrote:
>"Elitist" is an agitprop hammer. How low on the food chain do you have
>to go to not be elitist? Goat-ropers in a road-house with a bandstand
>covered with chicken wire playing Porter Wagoner? Otherwise I'm
>bourgeois?
The ultimate human conceit is that we are the last stop in the food
chain. Might just be we're not.
Texas Pete
Pete Kerezman
<misterw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>When bop came out, took over, I can hear a Dixieland purist going on about
>how bop isn't jazz, the product of self-absorbed hop heads....
Louis Armstrong singing the Wiffenpoof Song:
"We are poor little lambs who have lost our way,
Baa Baaa BEBOP!"
Texas Pete
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Pete Kerezman wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 23:07:38 -0800, Gerry <222...@spam.really.sucks>
> wrote:
>
> >Did we ever find out who did that bad "intellectual" jazz, that's
> >currently running off the listening audience? I wanted to check some
> >of that stuff out.
>
> Jim Hall and Mark Kleinhaut, to name a couple. But I sure can't
> call it "bad" or claim that it's running anybody off. It may however
> be "inaccessible" to the average Joe, simply because it requires
> intelligence, attention and thought to listen to and be able to hear
> what's happening. It's "concert" jazz, and like I've said on other
> occasions, I don't "get" alot of it but sure can respect and enjoy it.
How intellectual can it be if I like them?
Steve
>
>
> However, I feel that there's also a place for accessible jazz. I
> think if someone could again produce exciting jazz that *makes* folks
> dance they'd really be on to something.
>
> It's really about jazz maturing as an art form, which apparently is
> taking it in a brainiac direction. Which is okay provided you can
> accept the fact that most of the world ain't brainiacs so you're
> playing for a limited audience.
>
> Texas Pete
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Gerry
<j...@jackzucker.com> wrote:
> > What do you propose to bring the music back Gerry? Educate the
> > public as to how great us jazz guitarists really are and how
> > horrible Britney is?
> >
> > Now THAT was indeed sarcasm. But unlike your reluctance to say what
> > "intellectual" jazz is, I'll be glad to answer: I don't purpose to
> > bring the audience back. Their growth and attrition is just how it
> > works.
>
> No it wasn't. It was an extrapolation of your and several other
> folks' opinions on the subject.
Extrapolation? Okay, well then answering your non-sarcastic question.
I don't think there is such a thing as "educating" an audiences taste.
Taste is certainly informed by experience, but not by education
regarding the experience,say I. A lot of people say "Wow, I loved X
the first time I heard it." Or, "I heard a lot of X, but it wasn't
until I heard artist Y, that I began to 'get it'." That kind of stuff.
But again, telling the audience (or artists by the way) *why* they
should like something or shouldn't like something else, either because
it's too crude or to elistist--that's not my approach.
> I just threw in the pop idols as references to illustrate my point.
Well good, we can disregard the whole "sarcasm" side topic as
unimportant.
Back to topic:
Are you not going to cite an artist that represents your initial
complaint; a "purely intellectual approach to jazz"?
Gerry
<tw25R...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> > > > A cool metaphor. But how do we implement [the musical
> > > > equivalent of Shapespeare's "multilayered statement]?
> > > >
> > > By paying attention to format, methinks. Consider for a moment
> > > that traditional forms of jazz need not be replaced by something
> > > more contemporary and user-friendly; but, rather, supplemented by
> > > it.
> >
> > Cool, but how do we do that?
> >
> > Personally, I won't do much of anything about it. But if I were a
> > working musician contemplating a future in the business, I would
> > investigate the market closely and see what there might be in the
> > way of musical tools to work with. All the popular musics seem to
> > be rhythmically much more hip than they were a decade or two ago,
> > and most make some space for an instrumental break. I would also be
> > attentive to present the music in a way that highlights its
> > greatest appeal. A more general audience isn't likely to be
> > captivated by extended solo breaks, but a soloist can communicate a
> > lot in a chorus or two. Both the form and the audience need to be
> > treated with respect. I often hear that "jazz is never going to be
> > the popular music again", but I think if you gave them something
> > with a good groove and passion, you might be surprised.
To sum: make jazz a dance music again, make the tunes shorter. I have
no doubt that attendance to these two marketing components would make
jazz more popular.
As a funk and R&B fan, I don't have too many problems with some of the
dance aspects. On the other hand I'm quite sure fans would quibble
about their preferred dance meter and tempo. Should I respond? If I
don't *like* the preferred meter/tempo does that not make this
pandering?
Additionally stretching out on a piece and really deconstructing motifs
is a prime rationale for my involvement with the music. Clearly the
audience and I are at odds then.
Are you familiar with the first section of a raag in Indian music? It
is called alaap and is a long meditative process by which each element
in the scale is addressed, worked over, added to the extant elements
and generally improvisationally turned inside-out. They do this with
every tone of the scale and it can and does take between 45 minutes and
a few hours in performance.
In modern times the alaap has been relegated to a few minutes or
discarded altogether. Indian music afficianados think the form has
been barbarized because people don't have the patience (and or the
context) for the music. The logical length of recordings (78's
initially) didn't help in the process.
The exact same thing can be said of Jazz, it would have to be
fundamentally (structurally) modified for current tastes. And it will,
just as soon as that group of practitioners and afficianados have died
or moved on. Or, just as with any art form--if it retains it's
crediblity it retains it.
If jazz were to become dance music and the improv limited to a chorus
or two it would fundamentally change the music, I think. That's okay if
you don't like the music as is. Me, I do.
The important thing is that these approaches can and DO exist, and
always have. And always will. Jazz "afficianados" might not like
those pieces or artists but they are out there.
There's room for it all, I think.
paul
wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 23:07:38 -0800, Gerry <222...@spam.really.sucks>
>wrote:
>
wow. about the last thing I think of when I hear jim hall is
"intellectual". my girlfriend, who hates a lot of jazz, likes jim hall
and chet baker because they are really melodic and don't play a lot of
notey phrases. different strokes I guess.
--paul
tomw
222...@spam.really.sucks says...
>
> To sum: make jazz a dance music again, make the tunes shorter. I have
> no doubt that attendance to these two marketing components would make
> jazz more popular.
Some music stops short of being "dance music", but still provides a
groove function for people in social encounters. It draws people in.
>
> As a funk and R&B fan, I don't have too many problems with some of the
> dance aspects. On the other hand I'm quite sure fans would quibble
> about their preferred dance meter and tempo. Should I respond? If I
> don't *like* the preferred meter/tempo does that not make this
> pandering?
As I was saying, it seems to me that all the currently popular genres
are getting some kind of groove going. If I were looking for a broader
audience I would look for one(a popular music with a groove, that is)
that had some appeal to me, then become more familiar with it and see
what I could do with it. The groove, that is. I'm not talking about
playing a solo on a Garth Brooks tune(shudder).
>
> The exact same thing can be said of Jazz, it would have to be
> fundamentally (structurally) modified for current tastes. And it will,
> just as soon as that group of practitioners and afficianados have died
> or moved on. Or, just as with any art form--if it retains it's
> crediblity it retains it.
>
> If jazz were to become dance music and the improv limited to a chorus
> or two it would fundamentally change the music, I think. That's okay if
> you don't like the music as is. Me, I do.
>
Over the years there's been bucketloads of jazz that put arrangements
first then featured soloists for a couple of choruses. See Duke, Basie,
Lunceford, etc. That's how hits are made.
> The important thing is that these approaches can and DO exist, and
> always have. And always will. Jazz "afficianados" might not like
> those pieces or artists but they are out there.
>
> There's room for it all, I think.
>
Me too.
Jack Zucker
> Are you not going to cite an artist that represents your initial
> complaint; a "purely intellectual approach to jazz"?
You're right. I'm not. Maybe if we were sitting at the bar...
William C.
"Pete Kerezman" <pete...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1r7j60t086g39o0gh...@4ax.com...
Picked up Pops and Ella, two 50s sessions on one cd, yesterday, cds at 2 for
5 bucks at FYE. Will play and enjoy later this week. Love them both.
This morning I picked up some Billy Eckstine with Sarah Vaughn, and some
John Kirby, leader of a really tight (and wonderful) smaller group of the
late 30s, early 40s.
I deliberately choose some music with more in the way of, "pop,"
sensibilities, as I'm doing some recording, and have already veered into
something that was too, "intellectual," getting myself out of it and back on
track with some, hopefully, fun accessability.
This store also had Tal Farlow, Jim Hall, Miles, Trane, Oscar Peterson/Herb
Ellis/Ray Brown (two live concerts, one from the 50s, one from 60s), which I
passed on.... for now.
Jack Zucker
news:c4c7ie$2h0n43$1...@ID-216853.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Jack, while you are on this tangent, did you ever check out Eric Gale on
> Quincy's, "Walking In Space?"
No but I love Gale's playing. Post a clip!
William C.
"Jack Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote in message
news:F4ednQKRm7U...@adelphia.com...
If I had the cd/album, which I don't, I wouldn't post.... that's just me...
I had the lp when it came out.
Very tasty.
Killer (Joe) indeed.
Mark Kleinhaut
Pete Kerezman <pete...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 23:07:38 -0800, Gerry <222...@spam.really.sucks>
>wrote:
>
>>Did we ever find out who did that bad "intellectual" jazz, that's
>>currently running off the listening audience? I wanted to check some
>>of that stuff out.
>
> Jim Hall and Mark Kleinhaut, to name a couple. But I sure can't
>call it "bad" or claim that it's running anybody off. It may however
>be "inaccessible" to the average Joe, simply because it requires
>intelligence, attention and thought to listen to and be able to hear
>what's happening. It's "concert" jazz, and like I've said on other
>occasions, I don't "get" alot of it but sure can respect and enjoy it.
>
er, thanks, I think:0)
markkl...@hotmail.com
http://www.markkleinhaut.com
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com
Pt
wrote:
>I'd like to know how successful Rodney Jones is with his Soul
>Manifesto project because to me this is a fusion of Soul, Jazz, R&B
>and Hiphop that really works. It's one of the first fusion records
>I've heard that truly swings and is hip enough to listen to
>intellectually, yet has a groove you can dance to which afterall, is
>how jazz started in the first place.
>
>Sometimes, I get bored with the purely intellectual approach to jazz.
>Jazz has to have groove *AND* intellect.
>
>Jaz
Right on Brother Jack!!
Pt
Pt
wrote:
>I was always crazy for funk in the 70''s and 80's and had a hard time
>getting other players to get with it. Sometimes it was cool and then
>the whole "Disco Sucks" sloganeering got going. Which trapped most
>funk it's racist net. Not to say that disliking bona fide Van McCoy
>and K.C and the Sunshine Band Disco was in itself racist. Just that
>most of my white friends--as soon as they heard a popping base they'd
>start carping. That period really bummed me out.
I was never much of a disco fan but it had absolutely nothing to do
with racism.
Many of my friends and fellow workers are black.
Plus the fact that most of the music I have liked all my life was by
black musicians.
I was a serious pre-disco Bee Gee fan and even though I like some of
their disco era music I feel that it was their downfall musically
speaking.
I always felt that playing music is playing feelings.
Disco was dance music for John Travolta.
If it was not so over glorified I might have liked it more.
It was the start of categorizing music.
PS. I play Staying Alive and Wind of Change often.
Pt
Pt
wrote:
>s musicians, we have to remember who the music
>is for. If we want to be elitist and play for ourselves, we shouldn't whine
>about nobody wanting to listen to us.
Music is for the young and the young don't like jazz.
Pt
Gerry
<pete...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Did we ever find out who did that bad "intellectual" jazz, that's
> >currently running off the listening audience? I wanted to check some
> >of that stuff out.
>
> Jim Hall and Mark Kleinhaut, to name a couple. But I sure can't
> call it "bad" or claim that it's running anybody off. It may however
> be "inaccessible" to the average Joe, simply because it requires
> intelligence, attention and thought to listen to and be able to hear
> what's happening. It's "concert" jazz, and like I've said on other
> occasions, I don't "get" alot of it but sure can respect and enjoy it.
Well I don't know what Jack considers "purely intellectual". I don't
think of Jim Hall as purely intellectual. If he is, then most basic
mainstream jazz is the same. Defining terms can be so handy, though
it's so rare that it can be done to everyone's satisfaction.
If we put funky jazz (r&b influenced, etc) on one side of the aisle, I
think we can safely put most 50's and 60's jazz on the other side, yes?
> However, I feel that there's also a place for accessible jazz. I
> think if someone could again produce exciting jazz that *makes* folks
> dance they'd really be on to something.
By and large (and I know he's doing a whole 'nother thing right now)
you consider Hall inaccessile?
> It's really about jazz maturing as an art form, which apparently is
> taking it in a brainiac direction. Which is okay provided you can
> accept the fact that most of the world ain't brainiacs so you're
> playing for a limited audience.
Tough stuff to discuss.
Gerry
<j...@jackzucker.com> wrote:
> > Are you not going to cite an artist that represents your initial
> > complaint; a "purely intellectual approach to jazz"?
>
> You're right. I'm not. Maybe if we were sitting at the bar...
Oh c'mon Jack! Pleeeeze? Purty purty please? Cleveland's too far to
go for a beer, though you do make it tempting. There's more than one
view on jazz and guitar I'd like to pry out your brain...
Gerry
<tw25R...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> In article <300320040952323624%222...@spam.really.sucks>,
> 222...@spam.really.sucks says...
> >
> > To sum: make jazz a dance music again, make the tunes shorter. I have
> > no doubt that attendance to these two marketing components would make
> > jazz more popular.
>
> Some music stops short of being "dance music", but still provides a
> groove function for people in social encounters. It draws people in.
Dr. Gerry says that if it has a "groove function" it is, by definition,
dance-ready.
> > As a funk and R&B fan, I don't have too many problems with some of the
> > dance aspects. On the other hand I'm quite sure fans would quibble
> > about their preferred dance meter and tempo. Should I respond? If I
> > don't *like* the preferred meter/tempo does that not make this
> > pandering?
>
> As I was saying, it seems to me that all the currently popular genres
> are getting some kind of groove going. If I were looking for a broader
> audience I would look for one(a popular music with a groove, that is)
> that had some appeal to me, then become more familiar with it and see
> what I could do with it.
An enlightened view: dig through all that's available and try to find
SOMEthing you can get with. That is, in fact, I how I really started
getting with funk in the early 70's. I taped an hour off the radio and
went through it tune by tune trying to find something to cover for the
band I was in. The more I did this, curiously, the more connects I
started getting. Eventually I was listening to the black stations
primarily.
> > If jazz were to become dance music and the improv limited to a chorus
> > or two it would fundamentally change the music, I think. That's okay if
> > you don't like the music as is. Me, I do.
>
> Over the years there's been bucketloads of jazz that put arrangements
> first then featured soloists for a couple of choruses. See Duke, Basie,
> Lunceford, etc. That's how hits are made.
Oh hell! That's just what I was carping about a few months ago; how
arranging had left the building and everything was head-20
choruses-head and how some of that early "cool school" was so much a
whole piece rather than an opportunity for athletic displays of
virtuosity.
Greger Hoel
wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 23:07:38 -0800, Gerry <222...@spam.really.sucks>
>wrote:
>
>>Did we ever find out who did that bad "intellectual" jazz, that's
>>currently running off the listening audience? I wanted to check some
>>of that stuff out.
>
> Jim Hall and Mark Kleinhaut, to name a couple.
???
Jim Hall's Live, Mark's A Balance of Light and Take Five is just about
the only jazz I can play to friends who aren't into jazz. I think A
Balance of Light has a stronger commercial appeal than most jazz cuz
it has what most people who listens to music likes: Good, strong
melodic hooks that makes you wanna hear it again.
Greger
--
______________________________________________
What's up Chuck?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Kleinhaut
Greger Hoel <gre...@spamblock.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:21:28 -0600, Pete Kerezman <pete...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 23:07:38 -0800, Gerry <222...@spam.really.sucks>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Did we ever find out who did that bad "intellectual" jazz, that's
>>>currently running off the listening audience? I wanted to check some
>>>of that stuff out.
>>
>> Jim Hall and Mark Kleinhaut, to name a couple.
>
>???
>
>Jim Hall's Live, Mark's A Balance of Light and Take Five is just about
>the only jazz I can play to friends who aren't into jazz. I think A
>Balance of Light has a stronger commercial appeal than most jazz cuz
>it has what most people who listens to music likes: Good, strong
>melodic hooks that makes you wanna hear it again.
>
>Greger
>--
Thanks Greger, at last someone here defends my honor!:)
Max Smith
contemporary?) is some soul!
-- My name is Max Smith and I approve ths message.
Jack Zucker
news:nnkj60p84l26m4ce7...@4ax.com...
> Music is for the young and the young don't like jazz.
>
> Pt
I didn't know that. I quit.
Pt
wrote:
>"Pt" <notAva...@NoPlace.com> wrote in message
>news:nnkj60p84l26m4ce7...@4ax.com...
>
>> Music is for the young and the young don't like jazz.
>>
>> Pt
>
>I didn't know that. I quit.
Don't quit.
Play for old farts like me.
I love jazz.
Pt
Kurt Shapiro
door on a Tuesday night.
Actually, that sounds kind of fun.
"Gerry" <222...@spam.really.sucks> wrote in message
news:290320042304089819%222...@spam.really.sucks...
Pete Kerezman
<markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Jim Hall and Mark Kleinhaut, to name a couple. But I sure can't
>>call it "bad" or claim that it's running anybody off. It may however
>>be "inaccessible" to the average Joe, simply because it requires
>>intelligence, attention and thought to listen to and be able to hear
>>what's happening. It's "concert" jazz, and like I've said on other
>>occasions, I don't "get" alot of it but sure can respect and enjoy it.
>>
>
>er, thanks, I think:0)
Intelligence, attention and thought. You gave it when you created
the music, as a listener I owe it to you to bring as much of those
elements as possible to the headphones when listening to you playing
it. Take it as a compliment. It's okay to make music for smart
people, not that I'm one.
Texas Pete
Kneel Jung
>I think one of the reasons some of these threads get into shoving
>contests is because someone takes it upon themselves to preach to us
>what we ought do and what we oughta think, about what we oughta
>consider our problems. I've always rankled at that.
>
Me too.
>
>The audience for any style of music comes and goes. And many of the
>more rigid styles settle into a groove. There are certainly less people
>listening to dixieland, a particularly audience-accomodating music,
>than there were in the 50's I assume.
>
>One of the difficult things about jazz and growing jazz audiences is
>the vast disagreements among listeners and artists over what jazz is.
>Lots of stuff gets called rock-jazz, jazz-rock, pop-jazz, trad-jazz and
>on and on. Product definition and niche definition are important
>things and once muddied are difficult to pull apart for an audience
>that can point to what they like and don't like, but can't name it.
>
Well stated .
Dave
Kneel Jung
>You're right. I'm not. Maybe if we were sitting at the bar...
>
>
Your willing to start a thread citing an
example of who's playing with "soul "
but not publicly citing one artist who
"isn't "
what a joke .
Dave
Unknown
Dave:
It's very easy to toss out insults when you're hiding behind a screen
name, but when you use your real name here (as Jack Zucker does), it
becomes a much more delicate situation. Lots of us won't say anything
here that we wouldn't say right to somebody's face, and I'm betting
Jack is one of those guys.
Tim
http://timberens.com
A Website for Guitarists
Learn something...Have some fun
timb at erinet dot com
Adam Bravo
"Bob Agnew" <rag...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:OS8ac.28751$wl1.3585@fed1read06...
> Went to an Ornette Coleman tribute last night. I came home and immediately
> put on some Lou Donaldson. Ahhhhhhhhhh.
Was that the San Francisco Jazz Collective or whatever it's called? (I know
you're an LA guy) I'm sorry I missed that lineup.
> "Jack A. Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote in message
> news:2f33c43f.04032...@posting.google.com...
Gerry
> It's very easy to toss out insults when you're hiding behind a screen
> name, but when you use your real name here (as Jack Zucker does), it
> becomes a much more delicate situation.
I dunno. I can get into a contentious argument in a bar, and not feel
comfortable giving a guy my full legal name, just as I'm uncomfortable
framing it for enternity on usenet. It seems everytime I've briefly
done it, I find some new psycho who wants to call me on the phone to
"explain" something.
> Lots of us won't say anything here that we wouldn't say right to
> somebody's face, and I'm betting Jack is one of those guys.
I got the impression that Jack might say he thought player X too
intellectual if we were chatting in a bar, but he's not particularly
interested in make it a cause celebré by posting it in usenet and then
defending it for a few days.
That was my take-away. And I think that's entirely fair.
Bob Agnew
he beat me of the job with Eddie Harris back in the early seventies. ;=))
"Jack Zucker" <j...@jazguitar.net> wrote in message
news:TvudnamepIQ...@adelphia.com...
> Thanks for the link Bob. What are some good cds to pick up with lots of
> Melvin's playing?
>
> --
> Web: www.jazguitar.net
> Book: www.sheetsofsound.net
> Endorsements: www.jazguitar.net/endorsements.htm
> Soundclips: www.soundclick.com/2/jackzuckermusic.htm
>
> "Bob Agnew" <rag...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:5I8ac.28733$wl1.16516@fed1read06...
> Check out Melvin Sparks and Lou Donaldson on the title track of this one:
>
>
http://music.barnesandnoble.com/search/product.asp?sourceid=00210003897761554858&ean=724383124824&bfdate=03-30-2004+01:41:53
Bob Agnew
the SF collective. Awsome musicians. I loved Bobby Hutcerson's Vibes and
Marimbas.
"Adam Bravo" <mra...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Wkrac.69269$Bg.8005@fed1read03...
Kevin Van Sant
message <lY6ac.64922$Bg.58333@fed1read03> :
>That's why after a lot of dose of Jimmy Bruno, whom I love so much because
>of his technique, ability and good Jazz, and other straight ahead players, I
>still go home to George Benson. Also notwithstanding that Martin Taylor
>plays fantastic mainstream Jazz, he also incorporates all that is soulful,
>bluesy, hop-like. Martin Taylor plays breath taking jazz lines at any pace
>and he has lots of it out there. Awesome!
It's all in the ears of the listener I guess. I have nothing but
respect and admiration for Martin Tayor. His solo guitar playing is
unbeleivable. But I don't find his playing particularly soulful or
bluesy. Not like Grant Green or Peter Bernstein or (GB!) for
instance.
_________________________________________
Kevin Van Sant
jazz guitar
http://www.kevinvansant.com
to buy my CDs, listen to sound clips, and get more info.
Alternate site for recent soundclips
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/kevinvansant_music.htm
Kevin Van Sant
in message <nnkj60p84l26m4ce7...@4ax.com> :
>Music is for the young and the young don't like jazz.
I completely disagree with both of those points. Completely.
Kevin Van Sant
message <BC8DEEFC.850E%w...@earp.com> :
>What jazz needs is more people willing to just do whatever comes honestly
>from their hearts...
There you have it.
bob r
kvan...@pobox.com wrote on 3/31/04 11:38 AM:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 15:19:25 -0500, bob r <w...@earp.com> wrote in
> message <BC8DEEFC.850E%w...@earp.com> :
>
>> What jazz needs is more people willing to just do whatever comes honestly
>> from their hearts...
>
> There you have it.
>
Well, I thought so too, but you can get an argument in here if you say that
water is wet.
--
Bob Russell
http://www.bobrussellguitar.com
CD available: http://www.cdbaby.com/bobrussell
Jurupari
>water is wet.
...that depends on what your meaning of 'is' is.....
Max Leggett
No it doesn't.
Max Smith
> in article pqsl609vnmqiq7rl9...@4ax.com, Kevin Van Sant at
> kvan...@pobox.com wrote on 3/31/04 11:38 AM:
> Well, I thought so too, but you can get an argument in here if you say that
> water is wet.
Water wet? Preposterous!
--
My name is Max Smith and I approve this message.
Bluesbird2000
The title of the this thread is unfortunate because it helped to lead the
discussion off into various tangents. However, I truly believe that part of the
problem facing jazz today is the failure to give the rhythm section equal
billing in the development of musical end products. When the great drummers
like Tony Williams, Jack DeJohnette, Art Blakey, Philly Joe Jones, Panama
Francis, & Sid Catlett were part of the scene, along with dominant bass
players, the rhythm - "the groove" was just as important as the melody, the
solo and the lyric.
Jazz as a whole does not give the rhythm section equal time anymore, IMHO. The
worst example of this is the use of the drum machine and computers.
However, like it or not, this groove was a large part of the music's popularity
and reach.
So when you say all we need is to play music from the heart, you minimize or
ignore the fact that today's jazz is often missing "the groove."
It's fine to joke about it or to suggest that making music with a groove is
somehow selling out or catering to the masses.
From my standpoint, a more constructive response would be to examine the
approach to song writing, production, and performance and ask yourself whether
the drummer and bass player were given any significant creative in-put to
developing the project; whether adding a percussionist would enhance the song.
Because in the beginning of Jazz, the swing was THE most important part of the
end result.
My comments in this thread were intended to point this out - not to ask you to
play funk, or disco.
I want you to play Jazz - Real Jazz that remembers to "give the drummer some."
(And, you know what, some of the most creative beats around are coming from the
young boys in the street who wear the funny clothes - you can laugh at them if
you want but lots of them can really go)
Thom, I'm done, Man!
Peace,
Vince McKnight
tomw
@aol.com says...
> I want you to play Jazz - Real Jazz that remembers to "give the drummer some."
> (And, you know what, some of the most creative beats around are coming from the
> young boys in the street who wear the funny clothes - you can laugh at them if
> you want but lots of them can really go)
>
>
>
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
Gerry
<hepkatre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Does it depend on what your meaning if "is" was?
Gerry
Bluesbird2000 <bluesb...@aol.com> wrote:
> When the great drummers like Tony Williams, Jack DeJohnette, Art
> Blakey, Philly Joe Jones, Panama Francis, & Sid Catlett were part of
> the scene, along with dominant bass players, the rhythm - "the
> groove" was just as important as the melody, the solo and the lyric.
>
> Jazz as a whole does not give the rhythm section equal time anymore,
> IMHO. The worst example of this is the use of the drum machine and
> computers.
>
> However, like it or not, this groove was a large part of the music's
> popularity and reach.
Particularly this way, with "funk" (what it is and is not) put aside,
this is a very interesting take...
Jurupari
>>
>> No it doesn't.
>
>Does it depend on what your meaning if "is" was?
That would depend on what your meaning of 'was' is, er, or was! Will be!
Would!.. Dang, I never could get the hang of politics! Can! Might could!
Clif
thom_j
"bob r" <w...@earp.com> wrote in message news:BC9069AB.864A%w...@earp.com...
> in article pqsl609vnmqiq7rl9...@4ax.com, Kevin Van Sant at
> kvan...@pobox.com wrote on 3/31/04 11:38 AM:
>
> > On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 15:19:25 -0500, bob r <w...@earp.com> wrote in
> > message <BC8DEEFC.850E%w...@earp.com> :
> >
> >> What jazz needs is more people willing to just do whatever comes
honestly
> >> from their hearts...
> >
> > There you have it.
> >
>
> Well, I thought so too, but you can get an argument in here if you say
that
> water is wet.
It Is????