Calling all Jazz Cool Cats......

[NOSValves]

The best thing about JAZZ is that the genre offers a million options. Theres somethin there for everybody. A few years ago when ssh started the jazz thread I got hooked. I sort of liked smooth jazz but soon learned that soft bop and hard bop were great listening. I bought 82 CDs (based on recommendations by Allan) before I had one I couldnt stand. Thats a lot of music. The best thing about most of them is that I can listen to the entire album. That, for me, has never been the case with rock. I know what Craig means by random horn blowing and Im not keen on it either; at least in large doses. It aint just late Coltrane either. <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Gary mentioned live performances and hes absolutely right. Ive seen Von Freeman and Herman Riley, (tenor men) and enjoyed both immensely but while I could listen to Riley, (on LP/CD) for hours, I hardly ever spin a Von Freeman disc. Why? For me Von is too random, as Craig would say. Thats not a jab at Von or his music. Its just my preference. The guy was a treat to see live. The bottom line: I prefer jazz that makes my head go up and down more than side to side! BTW, I dont at all care for the stuff that makes your head go round in circles. [] <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Jazz cool Cat #3 just got promoted too a tie for Jazz Cool cat #2[] I couldn't of typed that post with such finesse if my life depended on it!! You explained my misgivings and nailed the type of Jazz I'm referring too. Allan said earlier in the thread "It's amazing--there is NOTHING like listening to a group of musicians who are all on the same page, flying" Now to me I get the exact opposite impression of much of the "Random Horn Blowing" type Jazz it really seams to me that none of the players are actually in the same band. They all just seem to be flying off in different directions like their intent is to draw the listeners attention to them personally rather they the entire piece of music or band. No organized melody so to speak.

Much to my amazement I think I have actually started a great thread for once. Keep it going folks I'm learning as I'm sure others are..........

Craig

[garymd]

Allan mentions that because "jam bands" played together for so long that it really isn't the same. I agree to some extent but a band like the Dead is more similiar to jazz, at least live, then he gives credit for. I think that listening to and seeing the Dead about 200 times over a 25ish year period made the transition to jazz an easy one for me. Every song, familiar or not, was an adventure. You really never knew what to expect. Some versions were just OK while others just jaw-dropping. Also, when Brandford Marsalis, Duane Allman or Bruce Hornsby (among many others) joined them on-stage, the band (especially Garcia) would always turn it up a notch and the interaction among the players was just amazing to witness. Do you really think those guys rehearsed together???

Like jazz, the Dead isn't for everyone and frankly, I'm not a fan of any other "jam bands." I don't really consider The Allman Bros., Derek & The Dominos or Neil Young jam bands but they've been thrown into that category by the folks at Sirius and XM. If they had one 20 minute live recording, they were a jam band. Give me a break!

[meagain]

I've a new apprecication for jam bands, but not the Dead type where they go off on tangents nonsensically. I'm really liking the type where it's more mathematical, hard, where they are actually doing interesting/complex time-signatures, etc. where there's a backbone to it that is constant/consistent. Perhaps I'm meaning.... more of a groove type jam band. I never apprecicated the Dead or that ilk. Same with improv in jazz where someone goes off on some self-serving tangent that doesn't seem cohesive to either the song or the rest of it. I have no appreciation for that. Would rather it be swing, big band, or traditional jazz by black dead people.

Smooth Jazz? Like Weather Report, etc? Can't stand it. All watered down, homogenized, boreing, music for the masses or elevators. I like what's going on with the new types of Jazz that has an edge or twist to it which is actually what I've been listening to alot lately. Right now, I think Skerik is a genious.

[TheEvan]

I really like African Jazz the Manu Dibango, Chief Osadabebe, and then there is the Ethiopiques collection.

http://www.amazon.com/Ethiopiques-Vol-Musique-Instrumentale-1969-1974/dp/B00000DDMB

I've been listening to a Rough Guides CD of Ethiopa of late and it is AMAZING! As a frequent traveler to the Dark Continent, I love all manner of African musical expression.

[Allan Songer]

Weather Report is not "smooth jazz." Their music is usually lumped into the genre called "jazz fusion."

That you call soloing a "self serving tangent" really says it all. Wow.

[Johncan]

I am a huge swing, bebop, post bop, and latin jazz fan. I have a ton of CDs and LPs in those genres. I am also 39 years old and have been a jazz fan since discovering it at age 18. In my 21 years of listening to jazz, I have never been able to get my brain to understand John Coltrane's Ascension. I love the overwhelming majority of his other work (I have more Coltrane that any other jazz artist), but I just can't seem to enjoy Ascension. I have tried and tried. My wife has asked me never to play it when she is around. I also have the same problem with Ornette Coleman. My brain does not repsond to the dissonance (which is odd cause I am a even bigger fan of punk music than jazz). I also struggle with some fusion. ******* Brew sometimes to me is brilliant and other times it is difficult to enjoy. However, recently, I have been enjoying Rashaan Roland Kirk and not all his music is pretty or easy to listen to.

John

[garymd]

I am a huge swing, bebop, post bop, and latin jazz fan. I have a ton of CDs and LPs in those genres. I am also 39 years old and have been a jazz fan since discovering it at age 18. In my 21 years of listening to jazz, I have never been able to get my brain to understand John Coltrane's Ascension. I love the overwhelming majority of his other work (I have more Coltrane that any other jazz artist), but I just can't seem to enjoy Ascension. I have tried and tried. My wife has asked me never to play it when she is around. I also have the same problem with Ornette Coleman. My brian does not repsond to the dissonance (which is odd cause I am a even bigger fan of punk music than jazz). I also struggle with some fusion. ******* Brew sometimes to me is brilliant and other times it is difficult to enjoy. However, recently, I have been enjoying Rashaan Roland Kirk and not all his music is pretty or easy to listen to.

John

Couldn't agree more. Ascension will never be played in my home again unless I'm trying to drive someone out of the house!

I'm a big Kirk fan too. I can't listen to it all but the stuff I can I really enjoy.

[3dzapper]

One of the beauties of jazz recordings from a listener's perspective is the way most of it is recorded and transformed to replay media. For the most part, the players are in a live venue or playing in real time in the studio. That gives an immediateness to the recording. Again for the most part, the artists are close miked into a reel to reel tape recorder. The sound heard in the venue is the sound on the tape. The tape is then transfered to the replay media with minimal processing. No distortion or reverberation, delay or effects are added by electronics. No multichannel mixing to be decided by an "engineer".

What was there is still there just the clean sounds of the instruments heard as the artists played them. The only thing between the listener and the musicians seems to be the microphone good or bad. The only other non-classical genre to record this way as a rule is bluegrass.

That said, I don't like free-form cacophony. Be it by Coltrane, Chicago or the Dead.

Rick

[jcmusic]

I have been following this thread with some interest, as where I live Jazz is king. Always has been and always will be, before I was old enough to right from wrong I knew about jazz music. If any of you who that don't get it ever come to New Orleans, you will expirence first hand what jazz is all about. It just so happens that today's newspaper listed this years line up fot the Jazz and Heritage Fest. Now that is the largest jazz concert that anyone could ever imagine, like 2 weeks of music held at the Fair Grounds Race Track every year. Some of the best jazz you will ever hear happens during this event. I must admit that for a very long time I took jazz for granted, I guess maybe because it has always been here and wasn't like anything special.

I have in the last few years taken a much more serious interest in jazz, and the history of it. I agree it may not be for everyone, but for me I should have gotten into it much sooner than I did. There is so much jazz here you can go out any night of the week, and hear all you want for free. The local jazz station here even has some musicans that volunteer their time as DJ's during the week. To get a taste of it on the local level you can go to the WWOZ website http://www.wwoz.org/ and see what's going on at one time. Checkout the DJ line up I have a couple of favorites in Judy Wood, and Valerie ( The Problem Child), and Bob French. There is something here for everyone who is into jazz, you will just have to listen and find the show you like. I will wait to hear if any of you check it out, and reply to this thread before I add more. One more thing, right now is a good time to listen; because of Mardi Gras. They start playing that music as well.

Jay

[NOSValves]

I classify that as just "minor random horn blowing" Actually pretty good...

[meagain]

Weather Report is not "smooth jazz." Their music is usually lumped into the genre called "jazz fusion."

That you call soloing a "self serving tangent" really says it all. Wow.

Nope - Big difference between soloing and what I'm referring to.

[TheEvan]

Two reasons that the Dead, Phish, Gvt. Mule (love 'em!) et al don't belong in jazz.

1. Genre. The esthetic is rock, not jazz. Different musical languages.

2. Musically, jazz soloing is played with and over the harmonic structure, while Dead, Phish, et al, while occasionally incorporating some jazz elements, is extended modal noodling related to the key but not the harmonic structure.

That Coltrane Giant steps Youtube video linked above is a magnificent example.

[boomac]

The solo in jazz is every musicians opportunity to truly showcase their ability and express themselves as a player. Usually the solo stays within the framework of the music but once in a while it gets pushed to a different level. The enjoyment of that level is dependent on the preferences of the listener. Blue Train is one good example of this I think. Listen to it; then try Night of the Cookers and youll see what I mean.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I never cared for Weather Report and agree with Allan. That aint what I consider smooth jazz. Try Rick Braun, Chris Botti, Bob James, Peter White and guys like that for the smooth stuff.

[Cal Blacksmith]

I loved the blue note sampler 4 cd set that Allan recomended but I just don't get this type of random horn blowing;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6WwuxqXPOg

They started and ended ok but in the middle, everyone just did their own thing without any relationship to each other or what anyone else was playing.

[pauln]

As a Jazz Cool Cat, let me try to offer my thoughts on what Jazz means to me.. perhaps my ideas might relate to the experience of others.

I became interested in playing jazz from discovering the inner beauty of what happens when gifted performers spontaneously "get it" and produce authentic amazing music.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

As a guitar player I had occasionally enjoyed this with rock players, but not too often because the nature of rock music is severely limited in what is harmonically and melodically allowed - not that there isn't plenty of variation and possibilities, but the rock sound is pretty well defined to characteristic progressions and changes that from a music theoretical standpoint are quite simple.

Playing out in the open mike clubs with blues players opened up a whole world of musical possibilities because, although blues has an even more restricted domain than rock, the harmonic structure is more complicated and yields a far greater range of melodic paths. Those that play rock and blues will know that in order to solo over straight rock music you just find the appropriate pentatonic (five note) scale and mode (Dorian or Aeolian, mostly) and just play those notes over all the chords in the progression. A good player will deviate from this but any player that sticks to just these notes will be heard as doing just fine for rock music. The thing that distinguishes the blues sound is that the choice of notes (the underlying scale for the melody) actually changes with the chords of the progression. Again, if a player uses just two scales (one for the I and V chord, another for the IV chord) he will be heard as competent to play blues. Again of course, a really good player will deviate from this restriction.

In jazz, the complexity increases with the possibility of playing melody notes from a different scale for each chord of the progression. In addition, there may be implied chords between the ones actually played that also need to be taken into account.

Now notice the trend in the above... a rock player will sound fine selecting notes from one scale, but if he sneaks blues scales into his solos he will be considered really good. A blues player will be fine using the two-scale approach, but if he sneaks in additional scales in his solos that are jazz based he will be heard as a great blues player.

Technically, we are at the end of the series...jazz is the ultimate end. But the thing is, just like before; a jazz player that plays all the right scales on all the chords in the progression will sound fine, but if he sneaks into his playing ... what? ... This is the beauty! - No one really has an explanation for the "higher source" from which the really fantastic jazz players are pulling their ideas. This is the departure point for true jazz - and it's destination is unbounded by anything except what the personal and public experience of the sound will allow. The ability of a jazz player to go beyond is what it is all about. It is the gifted jazz players ability to extract from and project to us an inferential image from this higher undefined musical level that makes jazz so special and wonderful.

The first time I performed jazz publicly was also the first time I played in public. I hopped up on stage and the band (upright bass, piano, trumpet, drums) just took off without a word into a song I had never heard. I figured it out instantly and played along until the third verse, then the horn player looked over and gave me a nod (my turn to solo). This is the way I like to play - songs Ive never heard with people I've just met. I improvised well; the band guys made me stay up on stage all night, they asked me to return and play two nights a week for a couple of months.

For those wondering how classical music fits into this series scheme, technically it is equal to jazz in that all possible chords and scales are potentially available to the form, but like the other forms, there are specific but informal boundaries that define the sound. The beauty of classical is heavy in the moment of composition of which the performance is an inference of what that was; whereas in jazz the beauty is very much in the moment of composition at the time of performance. In both forms, the beauty is in the composition; the excitement in the performance its just that in jazz both the composition and performance aspects are compounded together, which is why it is so important to experience it live, and why it is so satisfying to actually be the performer.

[garymd]

Two reasons that the Dead, Phish, Gvt. Mule (love 'em!) et al don't belong in jazz.

1. Genre. The esthetic is rock, not jazz. Different musical languages.

2. Musically, jazz soloing is played with and over the harmonic structure, while Dead, Phish, et al, while occasionally incorporating some jazz elements, is extended modal noodling related to the key but not the harmonic structure.

That Coltrane Giant steps Youtube video linked above is a magnificent example.

I wasn't implying that they belong in jazz at all. They are COMPLETELY different musical languages as you stated. That wasn't my point.

I also would never use the Grateful Dead and Phish in the same sentence but that's JMHO

[BillH2121]

Sorry to sound a bit elitest, but Jazz was never meant to be "gotten" by the masses. Like any form of art, it most appeals to certain members of the population who have the capacity to understand the intent of the artist and the knowledge to appreciate the technique required to do what the artist is doing. As that form of art becomes more recognizable to the population, the population becomes more comfortable with it and it soon becomes the status quo that must be replaced. In this regard, there is nothing about jazz that is any different from other complex forms of music. As example, read the accounts of the premier of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" where audience members sought to do bodily harm to the composer for his affront to civilization. That composition was deemed by many to be nothing more than noise and now it is a standard of 20th century composition and performed often. Other composers were not satisfied with the boundaries Stravinsky had set and pushed those boundaries even further. Most people these days have difficulty listening to mid-20th century composers such as Bartok, for example. The jazz from that same period has now become recognizable to most people and the harmonic/melodic/rhythmic elements in that music do not challenge the listner as they did in the 40's and early 50's. Coltrane, as example, sought to push the harmonic/melodic/rhythmic envelope just as did many composers and performers from the Renaissance period to the Baroque to the Classical to Impressionistic period, etc. Fifty years from now Coltrane's music will still be regarded as great but it probably will not "challenge" our senses as it does now. I guess all of this is a long way of saying there is music (e.g., Barry Manilow) that is crafted specfically to appeal to the masses and there is music that is made to push boundaries and to further the art. Jazz is ususally found to be the later.

[Johncan]

worthless trivia:

The guys that eventually became known as Black Sabbath started out playing together as a jazz group. I have no idea what Ozzy did back then. But if you listen closely to some of their early work, you can hear jazz bass lines and some jazz drumming going on behind the huge metallic riffs of the guitar.

John

[Allan Songer]

I loved the blue note sampler 4 cd set that Allan recomended but I just don't get this type of random horn blowing;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6WwuxqXPOg

They started and ended ok but in the middle, everyone just did their own thing without any relationship to each other or what anyone else was playing.

No. This is a PERFECT example of four musicians "on the same page, flying." There were very few working groups in the history of jazz who were so tightly bound--they are NOT "doing their own thing without any relationship to each other."

[boomac]

What's a phish?