I, upon closer inspection, want to get into jazz more. What is some beginer jazz. Don't throw me right into Jaco or Stanley Clarke. What are some Jazzy tunes to get me started? Thanks

Try the "Kind of Blue" album by Miles Davis.

The other thing is that jazz may be defined many ways. "Beginner" jazz to me would include works by Kenny G, David Sanborn, FourPlay, George Benson and the Rippingtons. But other jazz experts here would say that those groups are not jazz in the strictest sense.

They have some improvisation, but it is not as technically demanding for a beginner as more advanced jazz would be, say, later MIles Davis and others.

I hope someone else will enter this discussion and tell you what they feel would be good "beginner" jazz. Meantime, I stick by "Kind of Blue."

Well - you could have a look at the Aebersold books , which all have CDs with them, to play along with. They have books which are aimed at beginners to Jazz and you can actually build a programme out of them. There is a website which lists all the books - www.jajazz.com - this includes a "Jazz Handbook" which has quite a few free Jazz lessons that you can download.

But Jazz is really about playing with other people and I would recommend getting into workshops or getting a teacher.

Freddie Freeloader on "Kind of Blue" is a good introduction to a very simple "Jazz Blues". Usually - the way to get into Jazz is via the Blues and a lot of Jazz tunes are based on either 12-bar blues or the chords to "I Got Rhythm" - known as "Rhythm Changes" - which might be another good starting point.

When just starting out in Jazz, I really would like to recommend Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, John Coltrane. Those five figures span a very important time period in jazz and its evolution through the years. I know a lot of people like to recommend "Kind of Blue" and it truly is a great album for listening and playing, but as a beginner there were several songs I would struggle with, as modal jazz, in my humble opinion, requires much more knowledge in jazz theory and much more experience. I can most certainly be wrong on this, but I like Bruce's suggestion of Rhythm Changes. It presents more chords to hear in recordings, and you're not listening to a modal piece which presents so many more possibilities.

I really think you can't go wrong with those five players, but if you check into some Louis, check into his work with "The Hot Fives" as opposed to his later, more "pop", works like Hello Dolly and What a Wonderful World. (Not to take anything away from those recordings).

Originally posted by jazzbo
When just starting out in Jazz, I really would like to recommend Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, John Coltrane.


Jazzbo-
...Coltrane for the newbie, eh? ;)
Back in '75, I wanted to get into Jazz & I begged my uncle for some Coltrane; he spun Stellar Regions & I was scarred for about 15 years! ;)
And look at the diversity in a musician like Miles...which period of his would you recommend for a "beginner"? I listened to Kind Of Blue back in the '70s; I didn't "get it", regardless, I dug it(KOB happened to 'sound' like what I thought Jazz was supposed to 'sound' like...if that makes any sense. ;)

FWIW, I would also like to recommend a book, Mark Gridley's Jazz Styles; IMO, the book gives a pretty decent overview(even non-musicians can understand Gridley's approach)...he also gives hints about how to listen.

There is another book which might be helpful also.

"How to Listen to Jazz, Revised Edition" Jerry Coker; Jamey Abersold Publishing, $7.95, 1990, Paperback, 143 pages.

Originally posted by JasonOldsted

The other thing is that jazz may be defined many ways. "Beginner" jazz to me would include works by Kenny G, David Sanborn, FourPlay, George Benson and the Rippingtons. But other jazz experts here would say that those groups are not jazz in the strictest sense.

Or jazz in any sense at all.

And I disagree with the notion that a jazz newbie should start out with tamer stuff. For someone listening to Primus, Trane's _Stellar Regions_ might actually be the easiest to get. I think the jazz a person should start out on depends entirely on what the person's previous listening experience has been. The thing that got me into jazz was Trane's "Afro-Blue" from _Live at Birdland_, and "Chasin' the Trane" from _Live at the Village Vanguard_. If someone had given me The Rippingtons, or even _Kind of Blue_ for that matter, and told me this is the jazz I should be listening to, I probably would've never listened to jazz again, let alone want to play it.

Originally posted by JimK
Jazzbo-
...Coltrane for the newbie, eh? ;)


Just for listening. Just to get an idea of one of the places jazz has gone.

I'm not crazy you know! :D :D :D

Originally posted by TheFrizzleFry
I, upon closer inspection, want to get into jazz more. What is some beginer jazz. Don't throw me right into Jaco or Stanley Clarke. What are some Jazzy tunes to get me started? Thanks

What kind of jazz is piquing your interest? Louis Armstrong? Dizzy? Coltrane? Miles? Return To Forever? The Brecker Brothers? Spyro Gyra? Weather Report? "Smooth" jazz?

The word has so many meanings to different people. What kind you want to play will help us suggest to you what you should listen to and which books to look at. Any hints?

JazzBo, I'm not trying to heat up a big controversy here, but the bands I referred to are called variously, "light jazz', "cool jazz' and contemporary jazz', not "light pop", contemporary pop" or "cool pop." Records by the artists I listed are usually on Billboard jazz charts and seldom seen on pop charts (except Kenny G.)

I guess we all could argue here day and night if those bands do, in fact, represent jazz. I say they represent a sub genre of jazz, whether those who like other sub genre's of jazz more like you favor agree or not.

Jerry Coker in the Jamey Abersold publication, "How to Listen to Jazz" gives a lengthy definition of jazz on pages 3, 4, and 5.

In that definition he says, "The most important definition of jazz, however, is improvisation." I feel that the groups I mention do have at least solos and often more improvised elements in their music. How they choose to improvise, may be what separates their music from the jazz you prefer.

Also, maybe their music remains truer to the original every time they play their songs, so the improvisation is less adventurous and "creative" than what you prefer, but I bet David Sanborn thinks of himself as a jazz player and I bet Bob James does too.

The so-called "jazz charts" are meaningless. The use of the word "jazz" in regard to the music in question is nothing more than a marketing ploy. Twenty years ago the same kind of stuff was called "Easy Listening".

As for improvisation, that alone does not make something jazz. There is a jazz language, a harmonic and rythmic vocabulary. "Smooth Jazz" contains none of the elements of jazz. If you examine it's components you'll find it's no different that what is commonly referred to as R&B today, with the exception of the lack of vocals. In other words, within this same style, a tune with vocals is marketted as R&B, w/o vocals it's "Smooth Jazz" or "Contemporary Jazz" whatever the marketing machine is calling it this week, since "Easy Listening" fell out of vogue.

Frankly, I find it terribly offensive to hear that schmaltz referred to as jazz. It's not, get over it.

No sweat J.OLD (hope you don't mind the moniker :) ), we're on the same page. What I wanted to add to what you're saying, is that while KOB is seen as the definitive recording for a genre of era of jazz, sometimes I think the older standards are neglected. This was significant for me because when just starting in jazz (which we could say is still this very moment :) ), I found modal pieces much more difficult because my knowledge of jazz improvisation methods and just overall modal playing were weak. (See my "Getting Fresh Arpeggiations" thread in Misc DB, probably the most rewarding thread for me). But because I knew my arpeggiations pretty well, it was easier to do something like RHYTHM CHANGES, where I have an "easier guide" of where to roam. Blah blah blah. Am I making any sense?

JO-
...I hadda look over at www.allmusic.com 'cause, at one time, Bob James was a Jazz musician(anything pre-1965). Check it out & have a laugh at Scott Yanow's review of James' career. ;)

Sanborn, IMO(& I have a lot of his records...until he got too "polished" & produced & sequenced)was more in an R&B vibe/approach(maybe, just maybe in the olden days, his music woulda been considered as Soul Jazz...maybe). ;)
In any event, it's semantics; bottom line: Do you like it...

***PUNCHIN' IN***
JO-
...I know you liked KOB; here's another Classic you may like to check out-Point Of Departure by Andrew Hill. Check out this band-
Hill-piano
Tony Williams-drums
Richard Davis-bass
Joe Henderson-tenor sax
Eric Dolphy-alto sax
Freddie Hubbard-trumpet

Though POD may be considered Avant Garde Jazz, it's more "in" than "out"...great, great record!

Originally posted by David Kaczorowski As for improvisation, that alone does not make something jazz. There is a jazz language, a harmonic and rythmic vocabulary.

Dave-
...I'm with you for the most part; nice usage of the word, "schmaltz", too.
Anyway, agreed, Jazz IS a language with a harmonic & rhythmic vocabulary...now, do you see the vocabulary growing, in flux, or pretty much static(for the most part, what we have today IS "it")?
As for improvisation NOT being the only factor involved...agreed. So how do you feel about stuff like Miles' On The Corner or Jack Johnson or any of the LIVE stuff his post-Bitches Brew band recorded? The stuff is definitely "improvised", but...?
Curious about your thoughts...that's all.

I also get your point about Primus & "noiz-Rockers"...they MAY find late-period Coltrane, Cecil, Ornette, Pharoah, Air, Muhal Richard Abrams, Sun Ra, etc as "easy".
Frizzler, though, did ask for "beginner Jazz"...how can you go wrong with Miles, Coltrane, Bill Evans, PC, Philly Joe, & Wynton Kelly playing together on one album? ;)

Back to your point-
One time, in an effort to dislodge my brother from this(MY)PC, I threw in a David S. Ware cd; he didn't budge & when i finally asked what he thought about the music, he commented that he liked the guy's energy & how it reminded him of the distorted guitar stuff he likes. Made me scratch my head...

I dunno what kind of Jazz I want to play!?!?! Like I said I'm new. All I know is I heard the Primus version of Silly Putty (originally Stanley Clarke) and I was like "Whoa". Most "Jazz" I have heard are stanley clarke (yeah I heard his version of Silly Putty before the Primus version) and Jaco (I started talking to you guys and wanted to know what all this hype was about this crazy Jaco fellow). Besides that, I'm sure I've had exposure to Jazz, but can't define it.

It sound slike what you are interested in is the "virtuosic" aspects of "Jazz" as in the soloist as "guitar hero" or similar and is in fact a big area of dispute. If you go to 99% of Jazz tutors they will tell you that this is not what Jazz is about. Jazz is about collective improvising and creating alternative melodies - playing together as a musical conversation with other people - there are all sort of other harmonic etc. concepts that David has touched on but for clarity (simplicity) I won't go into that here.

BUT - in the 1970s we started to get the dreaded Jazz Fusion and after Miles Davis had started to introduce electric instruments and rock rhythms, other musicians "crossed over" and Stanley Clarke was one of those very much involved with this - so he played loud aggressive music and played with rock musicians like Jeff Beck. Now it is doubtful whether any of this can actually be called Jazz.

I do like Fusion myself a lot and it was what inspired me in the late 70s - but most of what is nowadays accepted as Jazz, has bypassed this period and acts like it never happened for the most part. ;)

Now even Stanley Clarke himself acts like this and mostly plays Double Bass nowadays and is respected by most of the Jazz community for doing this.

Jaco is more "enigmatic" as he did act like the "guitar hero" and embraced the cult of personality and played loud aggressive music during this period - but also he wrote interesting original compositions that have been accepted by some as Jazz standards and his playing wasn't always virtuosic for its own sake.

As you will see, from the lengths I've gone to so far (and only really skated over the surface) - this is a complex subject and Jazz is a "catch-all" for many types of music, in much the same way that "Classical" is misused as a term these days!

From what you say, I guess that what you are interested in is called "Fusion" - but the problem you will have is that this is by definition virtuosic and very hard to play - odd and shifting times signatures, incredibly fast tempos and long jams that require great stamina. "Easy" Fusion is really a contradiction in terms and I imagine that the reason Les Claypool likes Silly Putty and Stanley Clarke of that era is because of the incredible virtuosity on bass guitar that this typifies.

"Jazz is not important"

Zen Master - Ssab Ratiug

Originally posted by JimK
Dave-
...I'm with you for the most part; nice usage of the word, "schmaltz", too.
Anyway, agreed, Jazz IS a language with a harmonic & rhythmic vocabulary...now, do you see the vocabulary growing, in flux, or pretty much static(for the most part, what we have today IS "it")?
As for improvisation NOT being the only factor involved...agreed. So how do you feel about stuff like Miles' On The Corner or Jack Johnson or any of the LIVE stuff his post-Bitches Brew band recorded? The stuff is definitely "improvised", but...?
Curious about your thoughts...that's all.

The jazz language is still growing, and it will continue to grow as long as it doesn't become to codified. I'm sound old fashioned, or like I've been listening to too much Wynton Marsalis, but I think blues and swing are essential ingedients in jazz. However, I hear the blues and swing as much in Reggie Workman's _Summit Conference_ as I do in any Armstong. I hear the lineage or the tradition. The latter is an extension of the former. Big Band jazz grew out of early jazz, bebop was a reaction to that, cool was a reaction to bop, free was a reaction to the whole scene, etc. As long as cats are playing jazz in a true way, it will continue to grow.

Now I don't want to comment too much on electric Miles. Too me it sounds like some crazy funky rock. I hear blues, and it swings, but I don't know if swings in a jazz sense. Jazz sounds like it goes somewhere. Electric Miles is kinda static.

For the sake of discussion, let's include it in jazz. One might then surmise that a movement was sparked which would include Weather Report, Spyro Gyra, the Crusaders, Grover Washington Jr., jazz fusion, etc. Cases can be made that that's all jazz as it all stems from electric Miles jazz and the blues and this and that. But fusion reached a point, and I think we can probably blame that schmaltzy Grover Washington Jr. for this, where whatever blues and swing that was left, vanished all together. Since the beginning of jazz, there have always been pop musicians who incorporated jazzy elements, so schmaltz is nothing new. But Grover gave birth to Fuzak. Korny G., Phoney James et el. tool another step, making Fuzak indistinguishable from what is now commonly called r&B with the exception of the lack of vocals.

Y'know, I hate to see contemporary jazz, and electric jazz in particular, regarded as less than jazz. Miles' electric period was a period of growth in jazz. To me, the spirit of jazz is not blues or swing - it's that pioneering, forward-moving spirit. The understanding of your roots but the constant effort to do something different. Spyro Gyra mixed latin into contemporary jazz, just as Dizzy did when he mixed latin and post-bop. Stanley mixed rock into jazz, Grover and David Sanborn mixed in R&B.

The other thing you can thank Grover, Spyro, Sanborn, and to the greatest extent Kenny G (tho I prefer not to listen to him) is that if someone hears kenny g and then says "wow that's jazz? I'd like to check out some more." and buys a Parker record of Kind of Blue (considered by most to be the quintessential jazz album), then it's a good thing.

I love playing contemporary jazz. Combining elements of jazz (improvisation etc) with elements of R&B (groove and danceablilty) we've mangaged to get people to interested in jazz and ask for our band when they're partying.

If someone came up with a name for the Marcus Miller / David Sanborn / Norman Brown style other than jazz, fine, but like everything else, we're too hung up on lables. It's music, man.

Originally posted by David Kaczorowski However, I hear the blues and swing as much in Reggie Workman's _Summit Conference_ as I do in any Armstong.

Dave-
...thanks for your thoughts; & unless I'm thinking of Workman's Cerebral Caverns, SC didn't impress me as swingin', per se. I'll have to spin it this weekend; regardless, they're both happenin' albums by Reggie Workman.
Some of that electric Miles' stuff(like On The Corner) has that droning effect...maybe it's the Rock/Funk bassists on those records, I dunno. regardless, the "drone" does sound static(at times).

Ed-
...any info on that Gil Evans/Sanborn/Blythe album?
And Arthur Blythe IS an interesting cat; he'll hang with Fred Hopkins AND "Blood" Ulmer.

Packer-
"...the understanding of your roots but the constant effort to do something different".
Well said!

Hey Frizzle Fry If you want to start playing jazz I suggest you find a jazz oriented instructor to help you. Learn how to read music, and learn your scales they are so important! Then learn your modes - those are your most vital tools - Start learning theory and how to use it whan analyzing chorde charts - I would suggest to you that You start with a bunch of simple medium swing blues tune s learn how to walk and how to solo using the appropriate key changes!!!

Originally posted by 6-stringjazz
Learn how to read music, and learn your scales they are so important!


YEAH, that's been something I've been meaning to do, learn to read music. Where is the best place online to learn to read music. Also, what are the most vital scales. So far I've memorized the major scale, that penatonic one, and some crazy chinese soundin' one. Any other recommendations?

Pick 2 tunes - i'd recommend Autumn Leaves and Misty - and learn them backwards, forwards, sideways. Play the melody, walk, chords even and combine all of these to get the tune across.
These 2 tunes are good for this as the melody is one to whistle while playing that shows how chords work with melodies, and fairly obvious harmonies will present themselves. Misty is tougher because the melody moves over the chords differently, but with both to work on, practice and whistle constantly you should stay inspired for the 93yrs required for mortals to play jazz like heavens foremost!

What about Gershwin's "I've Got Rhythm" in addition to "Misty" and "Autumn Leaves"?

And Spyro Gyra, Norman Brown, Al Jarreau and David Sanborn aren't schmaltz either. Now maybe Lawrence Welk is schmaltz. Nah! I don't like to belittle other people's preferences in music any more than their preferences in fashion or lifestyle.

To call a certain style of music schmaltz is to belittle the music and the taste of someone who likes it. Too bad. I don't like to do that here.

Rock on, JO! I happen to dig every one of those artists.

Plus if you dis Al or Dave, you dis Marcus, and I ain't gonna do that!

Marcus Miller is DA MAN!

Anyway, sometimes I feel like such a DORK because I like FourPlay and occasional Rick Braun. No one gets so beat up here at TalkBass as a fan of "Easy Listening." But, funny, I call VH-1 selections "Easy Listening," not Pat Metheny and Russ Freeman.

This morning I turned on the DMX "Jazz Vocals and Instrumentals" channel. Norman Brown was playing. I laughed out loud, feeling positively rebellious, defiantly listening to Mr. Brown while daring to interlope in the land of jazz elitists.

Originally posted by JasonOldsted
Marcus Miller is DA MAN!

Anyway, sometimes I feel like such a DORK because I like FourPlay and occasional Rick Braun. No one gets so beat up here at TalkBass as a fan of "Easy Listening." But, funny, I call VH-1 selections "Easy Listening," not Pat Metheny and Russ Freeman.

This morning I turned on the DMX "Jazz Vocals and Instrumentals" channel. Norman Brown was playing. I laughed out loud, feeling positively rebellious, defiantly listening to Mr. Brown while daring to interlope in the land of jazz elitists.

Well, this is an interesting discussion and the problem of defining what is Jazz will probably never go away. I can see all the points of view and why there is a difference of opinion. If you are just listening to Jazz, then the stuff that is most highly recommended is often the most dense and hard- going. Whereas, some of the "smoother" stuff has high production values, often has good grooves and sounds like the musicians know what they're doing.

But the big difference comes when you actually start to try to play Jazz and I know that I like to play stuff that challenges me and that actually teaches me something. Jazz is a wonderful continuing education about music and the best tunes always have something to teach you. I find that playing new tunes that have something different in their construction - melodically, harmonicaly or rhythmically is a "painless" way of learning and getting these ideas in your head - if I had to do the same thing just by studying books I would never make the same progress and would probably just give up though boredom.

But when you look at some of the "easier listening" tunes, you often find that the players are just soloing over a two-chord vamp and that very little original thought or work has gone into the composition - in short it has nothing to teach me and there is no real interest. I might still be interested in some of the things you mention - like Nathan East's grooves, but really the harmonic interest isn't always there. I love funk music and playing the basslines - but again there is often very little harmonic interest and the players will settle into the two-chord vamp thing, which is good for dancing. Same with a lot of Latin music - Salsa particularly - I'm getting very bored with alot of the tunes my band plays and I would love to play more "real" Jazz with interesting chord sequences to play with.

So for me the difference is probably from the playing point of view and this is where the real appreciation of the craft comes in - I often find in attending Jazz gigs that nearly all the audience are people who play Jazz themselves on a semi-pro basis. :eek:

Originally posted by JasonOldsted
Marcus Miller is DA MAN!

Anyway, sometimes I feel like such a DORK because I like FourPlay and occasional Rick Braun. No one gets so beat up here at TalkBass as a fan of "Easy Listening." But, funny, I call VH-1 selections "Easy Listening," not Pat Metheny and Russ Freeman.

This morning I turned on the DMX "Jazz Vocals and Instrumentals" channel. Norman Brown was playing. I laughed out loud, feeling positively rebellious, defiantly listening to Mr. Brown while daring to interlope in the land of jazz elitists.

You go, girl! I'm with you.

Also, it's waaaaay harder (more challenging, forces you to stretch) to solo over a two chord vamp and come up with something interesting. When you've got static harmony (let's say "Mr. Magic"), you've got to really have your stuff together to not get stale fast.

...don't forget Marcus' time with Spryro Gyra(City Kids &/or Icognito; two of my personal favorites. Also appearing throught SG's history-
Will Lee, Eddie Gomez, Kim Stone, Oscar Cartaya, Scott Ambush...some pretty decent players).

As far as Jarreau-
...Nathan East, Abe Laboriel, Stanley Clarke have played on various records(maybe those from the '80s?).

I don't have so much a problem with SG or Sanborn or Jarreau; the schmaltz occurs when the "music" is an obvious PRODUCT(not "art"). And that's totally subjective...if you like what you hear, that's great!

FWIW-
...I don't solo(rare situations only); honestly, I think I prefer something with one or two chords(or better, NONE)vs. a chord-laden tune like "Donna Lee". That's me, though.
(& damn, I used the "solo" word in one of MY posts; c'mon, Bruce, bail me out!). ;)

This has just been the meatiest, coolest thread. It is so refreshing to get many well-explained points of view on something other than picks vs fingers or Fieldy vs Flea.

YEAH I ROCK!... I think

i guess this goes with the thread so ill ask this. i play in our schools jazz band and i want to learn to improvise a lot better so the teacher doesnt let all the bass players that try out in (she let 2 others in and 1 could barely play (even after i attempted to help him) but anyway next year when i try out i want to try to make the try out music more interesting that just scales. so should i try to learn scales and arpeggios and try to incorperate them into my playing? also im planning on buying the jazz theory book so will that have the stuff i should learn?

Originally posted by melvin
also im planning on buying the jazz theory book so will that have the stuff i should learn?

YES!

If you go through The Jazz Theory book, try all the examples and really learn this stuff, you will have a big advantage over most people! ;)

Seriously, it starts with the easy stuff an works through more and more complex ideas - I still haven't go to the end yet! But it's definitely got everything you need to learn.

Originally posted by JimK
...
FWIW-
...I don't solo(rare situations only); honestly, I think I prefer something with one or two chords(or better, NONE)vs. a chord-laden tune like "Donna Lee". That's me, though.
(& damn, I used the "solo" word in one of MY posts; c'mon, Bruce, bail me out!). ;)

Well as I said I like funk tunes with two chord vamps and enjoy soloing over them; but I feel that I learn more from a tune like Donna Lee or Lee Konitz's "Thinging" where the key centre is changing gradually from bar to bar.

There is so much in Jazz to learn about harmonically and I have so little time to practice this stuff, that I would rather spend that time on a tune that teaches me a lot, rather than on something I know I can do easily.

This is one of the things they always say at the beginning of the Jazz Summerschool I attend - that is : practice what you don't know or can't play well, rather than things you do know or can play well.
The tutors always complain (its a residential course) that they always hear people in their rooms practising the same old licks.

I think what happens then, is the more you practice this stuff the more you get into it and search out tunes with more interest. My local Jazz tutor always seems to come up with interesting tunes and he hates things with two chord vamps - but it's not because he can't do it - at one of the Summerschools, he was press-ganged into playing on Stevie Wonder's "I Wish" and played a truly wonderful solo, which brough the house down!

I quoted elsewhere about a conversation on a UK documentary between Keith Jarrett and Miles Davis - why don't you play ballads anymore? Miles - because I like playing ballads.

Couple more quotes for ya-

1)"Practice without memory."
-Ornette Coleman
(I'm pretty much "there" now). ;)

...and I just read these last night(in the "electric period" of Miles book by Tingen).
2)"Anybody can play. The note is only 20%. The attitude of the motherf***er playing the note is 80%. That's what's important."
-Miles
3)"Play what you know AND above what you know".
-Miles
(Note that Miles sez "AND"...what he means is playing "above what you know" all the time ain't happenin').

Hmmm...maybe I shouldn't have quoted Miles, as there were obviously times when his mind was shot away with long periods of drug abuse. I should have just stuck with the advice I have been given by various tutors who while not as well-known as Miles, are at least consistent and reliable. ;)

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=9896&highlight=walk

Try this thread. I put it up in "General instruction" a few months ago. This is strictly about walking/swinging 4 to the bar.

Note that this is only one KIND of "jazz", but it seems to be one that a great many people really mean when they say "jazz". This style started with Dixieland, went through Louis armstrong's "hot jazz" through big band and then to bebop and free jazz before funk and fusion pushed the "4-on-the-floor" thing out of the limelight. But there are so many walking jazz enthusiasts (our friend Mr. Fuqua among them) that it has survived.