 |
Vision Music
Community Forum
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dean
Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 287
Location: California
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:30 am Post subject: |
 |
|
After reading my post ,I realized that it is not just jazz but almost,if not all players music that gets shunned. Heck ,Jimi H. had to go to Europe to get known.And to be truthful ,Buddy Guy was doing the same stuff ,but did not get any credit for it.Like someone said ,in today's world it has to make money or it is not music, to most of the world.Not to mention ,in this country people want everything free,they act like a musician should just give it all away ,and be happy to be able to play for someone.The sad part is as a player ,we do want to be heard.Now they have pay to play clubs,it is bad enough players can not get paid,but now they pay to give it away.Something is truly wrong with this road players are going down.
_________________
What don't kill you makes you stronger |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thaydon
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 80
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, this is a great topic and something I have reflected upon since Bob Dylan said about a year ago that there hasn't been a good rock album in the past 20 years.
I believe music has a practical side to it. Nearly all styles of music have a purpose or end result for the compositions; classical for church services or special occasions, or to accompany voice. early rock n roll and swing to dance to. Early blues music to take the mind of a brutal work load. There's music for healing, meditation etc. With the birth of Bebop you had to listen to it and not necessarily dance to it. But the end result is the listener had a chance to listen to the musical conversations between players. Which meant that there was a group of players that understood and responded to each other. It seems nowadays perhaps due to the industry, groups are thrown together for recording but don't tour together or play for any length of time.
_________________
sincerely yours,
Todd |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Urs Helfenstein
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 22
Location: Lucerne, Switzerland
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
thaydon wrote:
| Quote: | | I believe music has a practical side to it. Nearly all styles of music have a purpose or end result for the compositions; classical for church services or special occasions, or to accompany voice. early rock n roll and swing to dance to. Early blues music to take the mind of a brutal work load. There's music for healing, meditation etc. With the birth of Bebop you had to listen to it and not necessarily dance to it. But the end result is the listener had a chance to listen to the musical conversations between players. Which meant that there was a group of players that understood and responded to each other. It seems nowadays perhaps due to the industry, groups are thrown together for recording but don't tour together or play for any length of time. |
Todd,
I’m sorry but I don’t think that this theory really works. Yes, the working life for a pro-player has become harder in the past few years, and there are not so many working groups in Jazz as in the fifties or the sixties, groups like the one of Clifford Brown and Max Roach or the groups of Art Blakey and so on. But: There are lots of recording and touring Rock groups, but in Rock – as “His Bobness” said – there’s also been not too much innovation in the past few years… In the fifties and the sixties of the 20th century, people have been keen on the newest sounds, but nowadays, we prefer to listen to our old records instead of being open to the news. And I confess: So do I!
Sometimes I guess that there is so much change in our everyday life (just think of the internet: Twenty years ago nearly nobody could imagine such a thing as this internet-forum!) that people don’t have to energy to be open to the progress in Jazz or in of the fine art in general…
But maybe that’s to much a European or a western point of view? Maybe art doesn’t need this kind of progress? What do you think about it?
Sincerely yours
Urs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark
VM Coach
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 479
Location: Portland, OR
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 9:21 am Post subject: Re: The Future of Jazz Guitar |
|
|
| Urs Helfenstein wrote: | | Sometimes I guess that there is so much change in our everyday life (just think of the internet: Twenty years ago nearly nobody could imagine such a thing as this internet-forum!) that people don’t have to energy to be open to the progress in Jazz or in of the fine art in general… |
Urs,
You bring up an excellent point, my friend. As our world has gotten smaller (via the internet) and more technically advanced, the progress has brought more diversions than ever before. Realistically, if we look back decade by decade, it was much easier to focus in a narrow manner that perpetuated growth and innovation from artists across the board.
When I was first exposed and inspired to play jazz in the sixties, there was much less diversion on all fronts. I'd sit down and play along with my jazz and blues heroes until I began to assimilate the language. It was purely an aural experience, except for the times I would sneak into a local jazz club as a teenager with a phony ID to catch Oscar Peterson, Kenny Burrell, and others. 
Nowadays it takes more determination and a deeper understanding of what is required to replicate the experience of those legendary players, yet it's an uphill battle in an era of so many choices and diversity. All for now...
- Mark
_________________
"Anyone can make the simple complicated. Creativity is making the complicated simple" - Mingus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thaydon
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 80
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Okay, but Wes stood in the tradition of jazz (guitar), he was paying his dues as a blues and a bebop/changes player, but he also changed the jazz world with his new ideas. ........
How do you, Mark, and how do the forum members think about my thoughts?"
In one workshop a well known jazz guitartist said that jazz guitar is typically behind a few in years in comparison to other jazz instrumentalists. And that Wes changed the jazz guitar world but not the jazz world.
On another topic, blues may not necessarily be easy to play for all players. It may be possible that musicians have a tendency to play a certain style of music and go with that...
_________________
sincerely yours,
Todd |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Urs Helfenstein
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 22
Location: Lucerne, Switzerland
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Todd wrote
| Quote: | | In one workshop a well known jazz guitartist said that jazz guitar is typically behind a few in years in comparison to other jazz instrumentalists. And that Wes changed the jazz guitar world but not the jazz world. |
Todd
Do you really think it's true that Wes changed "only" the jazz guitar world but not the whole Jazz world? Here is my opinion: Wes was part of the Hardbop movement, and I think, there were so many great Hardbop players who changed the Jazz world with all their great records (and concerts, I guess). When you talk about the twenties in the last century, there's Louis Armstrong and a few other names. In the Bebop-era of the fourties and early fifties there are a lot of great players, but it's clear: Bird, Dizzy and maybe Monk and Kenny Clark are the big names. But in the Hardbop-era: Which are the big names? There are only big names! And they all together - Wes included - changed the world of jazz. That's how I think about it.
I also don't agree with the statement that jazz guitar is typically behind a few years in comparison to other jazz instrumentalists. What's about Charlie Christian? He was part of the Bebop movement from the very beginning! There are records made by a young jazz fan at Minton's in Harlem in May 1941, and when you listen to these records you hear Dizzy and Monk and Kenny Clark looking for a new sound. And you hear Charlie Christian and he plays as great as the other cats. And what's about John McLaughlin? He was right there when Miles changed the Jazz world with his "Bitches Brew"-sessions. And: I'm a fan of Jimmy Raney and Tal Farlow. Listen to the Stan Getz records feat. Jimmy Raney and you'll hear a great saxofon player and a guitarist of equal quality. And Tal Farlow could play just anything, I just bought the great box "The complete Verve Tal Farlow Sessions" and sometime I think I should take a sabbatical just to have enough time for listening to these records 
Urs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark
VM Coach
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 479
Location: Portland, OR
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject: Re: The Future of Jazz Guitar |
|
|
| Urs Helfenstein wrote: | | I also don't agree with the statement that jazz guitar is typically behind a few years in comparison to other jazz instrumentalists. |
Urs,
You make excellent points regarding guitarists who are a significant piece of jazz history, yet I've always felt that horn players (like the ones you cite and others) have always paved the way when it comes to innovation and harmonic breakthroughs in jazz music. As a case in point, my late father (trombonist) always looked at jazz guitarists as rhythm section guys first and foremost, with perhaps Basie's Freddie Green as the prime example. Pianists had a more elevated status beyond the rhythm section, although they also followed the lead of horn players to a degree.
Of course, guitar players evolved as improvisers in their own right, mainly by imitating the aforementioned horn players who had already developed that ability. Logically, this is due simply to the fact that a horn player in comparison is primarily consumed with melody. And in that sense alone I do maintain the belief that guitarists, while right there historically with other instrumentalists, were slightly behind the improvising curve as they were imitating their saxophone and trumpet counterparts. However, it wasn't by "a few years" in my book. All for now...
- Mark
_________________
"Anyone can make the simple complicated. Creativity is making the complicated simple" - Mingus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thaydon
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 80
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:06 pm Post subject: Re: The Future of Jazz Guitar |
|
|
| Quote: | | Logically, this is due simply to the fact that a horn player in comparison is primarily consumed with melody. And in that sense alone I do maintain the belief that guitarists, while right there historically with other instrumentalists, were slightly behind the improvising curve as they were imitating their saxophone and trumpet counterparts. |
Interestingly, the same guitarist said what Mark said above and then referred to how Grant Green in the early years didn't really play many chords but more single note lines and that may have helped his progress, later he was shown chords.
_________________
sincerely yours,
Todd |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dean
Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 287
Location: California
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It just makes sense that the horns came first.Then electric guitar came along and they followed the horns.Now I think they are equal ,as I can watch a single horn player and enjoy it,and I can see a single guitar player and enjoy it.The horns are going to play some guitar licks and the guitars are going to play some horn licks.I guess what I am saying is guitars have caught up in the jazz scene.They both can stand on their own,but together is way cooler.JMHO
_________________
What don't kill you makes you stronger |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Urs Helfenstein
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 22
Location: Lucerne, Switzerland
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dear friends
Okay, I agree, there’s a certain logic that horn players were first and guitarists often a step behind. But let’s go back to the main subject: The future of Jazz (guitar). I’m still curious what the music that we all love so much could bring in the next years. So I would like to discuss this topic once again, but this time: Let’s leave the names away! Because discussing about players leaded us to a dead end. So I put the question this way:
I think most forum members will agree with Mark’s approach that Jazz is like a language. Learning to play Jazz means learning the Jazz vocabulary. But: The Jazz language is something that developed! The Jazz language of Louis Armstrong wasn’t the same as the Jazz language of Charlie Parker or the one of Herbie Hancock. They have lots in common like being rooted in the Blues, but it isn’t the same as the language of a Shakespeare wasn’t the same as the one of Philip Roth for example, even when they both wrote/write in English. And now: How could be the Jazz language of the future? Will there be a further development of Jazz and Jazz language? And will things develop as fast as in the last century or will there be little but precious steps of development? Are there right now steps of development? And in which direction could the development lead us? And what’s about the role of the guitar in this development?
How do people think about that in the motherland of Jazz (or elsewhere)?
Urs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gorecki
Site Admin
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 238
Location: Glenwood, MD
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From what I can see it will continue to grow and evolve. Certainly for the better but some I'm sure not. Players who truly love the instrument will continue to attempt something new and it likely will not be new.
Long ago, guitar was a second class instrument but hasn't been in that status for a very long time. But, the bar has been raised. Like ALL things in our world, the players skill sets continue to elevate as well as the information and mentoring available to them.
Where is it going? Who knows...that's like asking who will win the next World Cup or will it be sunny or cloudy on Oct 5th 2011....nobody knows..all of that is forecasting and is a waste of energy unless it has purpose.
_________________
Forums Admin VisionMusic.com
Do you know where all of your F'n B flats are? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Urs Helfenstein
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 22
Location: Lucerne, Switzerland
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gorecki wrote:
| Quote: | | Where is it going? Who knows...that's like asking who will win the next World Cup or will it be sunny or cloudy on Oct 5th 2011....nobody knows..all of that is forecasting and is a waste of energy unless it has purpose. |
Dear Gorecki
I agree: Nobody knows where Jazz will go. But I’m interested in the question where could go. Let me give you an example: When Coleman Hawkins made his great recordings in the thirties (like “Body and Soul”) it wasn’t Bebop. But the way he was improvising showed a new direction where Jazz could go, and so for some reasons he paved the way for Bebop. Or to use your image: Nobody knows who will win the next World Cup (By the way: Are you a soccer fan as I am? Or which World Cup are you talking about? ) but you can discuss the tendencies in a given sport and the strengths and weakness of the teams. So I would like to know about new tendencies and ideas in Jazz and discuss them.
Urs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gorecki
Site Admin
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 238
Location: Glenwood, MD
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Urs, you gave a great example using Hawkins, someone who had a large influence. He also was continuously influenced by (aka stole from) others in his later years. But he like Jazz in general came in an era where it was a popular music style. Today, Jazz is anything but popular and is primarily kept alive by people like us...not popularity. Popularity is what sells and if it doesn't sell, it doesn't get widely marketed.
Other 'players' have heavily influenced change. A grand example is Eddie Van Halen who virtually single handedly changed modern guitar. But obviously isn't jazz, but was popular! There are many more but would guess you get the point.
We're in an era of instant gratification and with the extremely limited attention of today's popular audience; I highly doubt jazz will get the attention it deserves. But it is entirely possible one day a change will occur where people want the depth Jazz has to offer once again.
I'll give you a good contrasting example who happens to be my little brother, Scott Kinsey. He's recorded or appeared on I think more than 70 releases now, a dozen movie sound tracks or more and I'm willing to guess you've never heard of him? He is massively talented and has taken music to his own level, integrating influences from all over the world. But like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if you've never heard of him, because it's not popluar. This is why I don't have a lot of faith jazz will have any real markers of change, because they already exist but are largely ignored I'm afraid.
And yes...I am a big soccer lover. I also play on 3 teams. Love it!
_________________
Forums Admin VisionMusic.com
Do you know where all of your F'n B flats are? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark
VM Coach
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 479
Location: Portland, OR
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:53 am Post subject: Looking Forward or Back? |
|
|
| Gorecki wrote: | | We're in an era of instant gratification and with the extremely limited attention of today's popular audience; I highly doubt jazz will get the attention it deserves. But it is entirely possible one day a change will occur where people want the depth Jazz has to offer once again. |
Brian,
Totally agreed. My father often used the term "cyclic" in discussing music genres, and it surely applies to jazz and its ongoing evolution. However, for it to grow players need to be historically educated, and most lack a real knowledge in that arena. Personally, I think that's one of the main reasons for a disconnect of sorts and the popularity of "fusion" guitarists who really don't have a thorough grasp of blues and changes playing.
I also agree with what you said earlier about the unpredictability of the future of jazz music. I mean, it was hard to predict its future even when it was more popular 40-50 years ago, let alone today when it takes a lot of dedication to the genre to educate yourself regarding its origins.
My compliment to Urs is that he is the exception to the rule when it comes to jazz history. As such our time might be better spent sharing what we do know and elevating the awareness of those still seeking that knowledge, instead of musing about what might or might not happen in the future. All for now...
- Mark
_________________
"Anyone can make the simple complicated. Creativity is making the complicated simple" - Mingus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Urs Helfenstein
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 22
Location: Lucerne, Switzerland
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gorecki wrote:
| Quote: | | ...you gave a great example using Hawkins, someone who had a large influence. He also was continuously influenced by (aka stole from) others in his later years. But he like Jazz in general came in an era where it was a popular music style. Today, Jazz is anything but popular and is primarily kept alive by people like us...not popularity. Popularity is what sells and if it doesn't sell, it doesn't get widely marketed. |
Brian
Yes, it’s true: Jazz isn’t that popular as it was when Coleman Hawkins recorded „Body and Soul“. And it makes things easier as a musician (as an artist in general) when your work is noticed by the public. I also understand the frustration about the fact that most of the music of nowadays which gets a lot of attention is just stupid and on the other side there are highly talented players like your brother who don’t get the attention they deserved. But: Is this the message I get from the motherland of Jazz that Jazz doesn’t develop any further? That the music, based on spontaneity and improvisation, is on a point where it’s only repeating itself? Where is the courage, the spirit you Americans are so famous for?
Urs
Mark wrote
| Quote: | | My compliment to Urs is that he is the exception to the rule when it comes to jazz history. As such our time might be better spent sharing what we do know and elevating the awareness of those still seeking that knowledge, instead of musing about what might or might not happen in the future. |
Mark
For me studying history of Jazz was never opposite to my curiosity what this music could bring us next. Both are part of my love to Jazz. When I started to listen to Jazz (about twenty years ago) I went to a Jazz Festival near by Lucerne, a great festival which was a stronghold of Free Jazz back in the seventies and which is still frequented by (how should I call them?) progressive players. But at the very first time I went to this festival I bought a book about Jazz history on the festival area. I was reading between the concerts and I was as impressed by the rich history and all the giant steps Jazz had taken in the past as by the music I heard. For me, knowing (Jazz) history helps me to understand the presence and to face the future.
All for now
Urs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
