Are Jazz bands cover bands?

[werbo1]

So we don't call them Rock Bands, we call them cover bands...

Isn't a Jazz Band a cover band because they just play Jazz standards?

Me no get it...since when was Jazz better than rock to earn the right to not be a cover band?

[hartke20g]

if all they play is jazz standards, then by definition yes. they're playing someone else's music- even if they give it a twist. heck, i'd go as far as saying classical orchestras are cover bands (cover orchestras/etc). they're just not known as such.

[bongomania]

I used to play in a "burlesque orchestra", a 10-piece pit band that did mostly tunes from noir/spy films, striptease shows, exotica, that sort of thing... We were one of the only bands around at the time doing that material, but it was almost all covers. Yet if we had let it be said that we were a "cover band", nobody would ever have booked us. It's all semantics and perception really. Like the guy above said, classical orchestras are cover bands too!

[barebones]

If you didn't write it you're covering it.

Matt

[Aaron Saunders]

Comparing a jazz band to "some guys who play ACDC at BJ's Sports Bar every Saturday" is kind of like comparing an Audi to "that car on the corner with one red door."

But realistically? Yeah. Totally.

[barebones]

Originally Posted by Aaron Saunders

Comparing a jazz band to "some guys who play ACDC at BJ's Sports Bar every Saturday" is kind of like comparing an Audi to "that car on the corner with one red door."

But realistically? Yeah. Totally.

Yep. Both are cars. Both are cover bands.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Matt

[HomeBrewTJ]

Then that's like calling every single country band in the world a cover band. It's just the nature of the genre. Who cares.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by Aaron Saunders

Comparing a jazz band to "some guys who play ACDC at BJ's Sports Bar every Saturday" is kind of like comparing an Audi to "that car on the corner with one red door."

But realistically? Yeah. Totally.

Not at all - there is a huge difference!

So Jazz is all about improvising collectively - any tune is just a jumping-off point for that!

So - I go to my local Jazz club on Friday nights and two groups night play the same standard - but the performance is totally different!

Actual playing time of the "head" - the tune, might be 30 seconds at most - whereas the improvisation will typically go on for 10-15 minutes!

Jazz is all about what the players can make of any material - not the material itself!

Totally different!

[dlloyd]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

Not at all - there is a huge difference!

So Jazz is all about improvising collectively - any tune is just a jumping-off point for that!

So - I go to my local Jazz club on Friday nights and two groups night play the same standard - but the performance is totally different!

Actual playing time of the "head" - the tune, might be 30 seconds at most - whereas the improvisation will typically go on for 10-15 minutes!

What do you make of Jazz Manouche bands where guitarists will often quote extensively from Django's solos? Sometimes to the extent of playing a solo verbatim?

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by dlloyd

What do you make of Jazz Manouche bands where guitarists will often quote extensively from Django's solos? Sometimes to the extent of playing a solo verbatim?

Well personally I don't consider that Jazz at all!

Jazz is about improvising "in the moment" - and is particularly not about playing what somebody else played!

That is why Jazz is not about "covering" - it is about transforming and making your own music which is different every gig!

It's not about "repertoire" - it's about a conversation with other players , audience - although obviously 'informed' by a tradition, but not in any way constrained!

[dlloyd]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

Well personally I don't consider that Jazz at all!

Jazz is about improvising "in the moment" - and is particularly not about playing what somebody else played!

But surely many jazz musicians play licks they cop from others?

[Rakie]

Originally Posted by dlloyd

But surely many jazz musicians play licks they cop from others?

sometime's, but thats not what jazz is about at all, there arent really any jazz standards, if you're sitting there with sheet music doing an exact replica of a song, then... thats not jazz.

Here is a dictionary definition...

Jazz: A style of music, native to America, characterized by a strong but flexible rhythmic understructure with solo and ensemble improvisations on basic tunes and chord patterns and, more recently, a highly sophisticated harmonic idiom.


What does that say ? Basically it says "Jazz = Improv" meaning, a band covering a "jazz" song isn't technically a jazz band, according to Jazz musicians and the Dictionary, at least.

[dlloyd]

Thanks for that, but the question was really a philosophical one.

When you're improvising and you pull out an off-the-shelf lick to go over a ii-V-I cadence, in the context of a larger solo, is that jazz?

If you're soloing on Autumn Leaves and suddenly play the theme from MASH (try it sometime), is that jazz?

If you quote a solo from a famous jazz musician in the context of a larger solo, is that jazz?

[BassChuck]

This is interesting. I guess another way to ask the question is, "in a cover band, just what is it that is being covered?".

One very important item to keep in mind when comparing jazz and Rock is that with Rock, the main source genesis of the music is the recording. With Jazz its the melody.

With Jazz all that is needed (if you even need this) is a lead sheet with the melody and chords.... and anyone who has dealt with jazz very long can tell you that the chords are anything from sacred... they are very often changed for a variety of reasons. The melody is more often kept the close to the same, its the idenity factor of the tune... but it is played in a variety of ways. One of the 'truisms' of jazz is that "the older a tune is, the faster it can be played". The bottom line a jazz musician will change a lot of the elements of a song to suit themselves and in doing so, make a personal musical statement with the tune. People who go to a jazz performance EXPECT these things to take place.

With Rock, the recording is the issue and anyone attempting to perform pop or rock tunes in public has to come pretty close to the original sound/arrangement to give the audience what they expect (you can get away with changing some stuff on the older tunes, but Iwouldn't recommend doing "Rock Around the Clock with too many tri-tone subs). Anyone who has attempted to play pop/rock music with the same aethetics as the jazz musician will find the audience unattentive.

This isn't to say that one style is better than another, they both have their place and both have their audiences. I'm sure it's been done, but I doubt a band that performed major Rock hits of the 70's and 80's with different chords, tempos and time signatures would be any more successful than a band that performed all of Miles' tunes from 'Kind of Blue' note for note.

[driver800]

So with some of these definitions, a "rock cover band" improvising on Mustang Sally is actually a jazz band? I don't think many would agree with that.

The best definition of jazz? "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I hear it."


IS THAT JAZZ?
Basie was never really commonplace
He was always measures ahead.
Ellington was more than number one
For the music and things that he said.
Bird was the word back when tenors were heard
From Kansas right up to the Prez
And Billie was really the Queen of a scene
That keeps echoing on in my head.

What it has will surely last but is that Jazz?

Miles had a style that amazes and raises
The spirits from deep in your soul.
'Trane struck a vein of laughter and pain
Adventures the mind could explore.
Stevie and Bob talk of freedom and 'Jah'
In their own individual ways.
Playing and singing as long as its bringing
A message is all that it says.

What is has will surely last but is that Jazz?

We overanaylze we let others define
A thousand precious feelings from our past.
When we express love and tenderness

Is that Jazz? Is that Jazz? Is that Jazz? Is that Jazz?

Dizzy's been busy while Grover gets us over
With notes that go straight to the heart.
Brother Ron gets it on with a bassline so strong
That the sounds seem to glow in the dark.

I take pride in what's mine - is that really a crime -
When you know I ain't got nothing else?
Only millions of sounds picks me up when I'm down;
Let me salvage a piece of myself.

What it has will surely last but is that Jazz?

- Gil Scott Heron

[Richard Lindsey]

No, jazz bands that play only standards aren't cover bands in the way that the term is usually meant. The average rock cover band tends to try not only to play the song but also to reproduce the sound of the record to some extent, sometimes even as far as copping the guitar solo. (I know that not all do, and some are more adventurous, but you usually have some sort of pressure to make the song recognizable by listeners/dancers.) With a standard-playing jazz band, there's generally a higher proportion of "original" (or if that's too optimistic, "spontaneously generated") new material, in the form of improvisation. It would not be uncommon for a jazz band to play something from "Kind of Blue," but it would be uncommon to hear a jazz band not only play the tune but also copy every single solo.

Still, there is definitely a sense in which you could call a standard-playing jazz band a cover band, just of a different sort. But I don't know how actually meaningful that would be. What would you illuminate or explain by using that term?

[dlloyd]

Originally Posted by Richard Lindsey

It would not be uncommon for a jazz band to play something from "Kind of Blue," but it would be uncommon to hear a jazz band not only play the tune but also copy every single solo.

It would be unusual, that's certain.

I've played (rock) tribute gigs where the whole concept behind the gig was to reproduce everything on the record exactly. They were a blast, but I wouldn't necessarily choose to do that all the time...

Imagine a Kind of Blue tribute, where all songs were reproduced exactly as they were on the record. Would that imply that the music had changed genre? Even if there was nothing audibly different?

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally Posted by dlloyd

It would be unusual, that's certain.

I've played (rock) tribute gigs where the whole concept behind the gig was to reproduce everything on the record exactly. They were a blast, but I wouldn't necessarily choose to do that all the time...

Imagine a Kind of Blue tribute, where all songs were reproduced exactly as they were on the record. Would that imply that the music had changed genre? Even if there was nothing audibly different?

That the music had changed genre? I'm not sure--probably not, in that what you were hearing could be thought of as a "recording," of sorts. But that the musicians had changed genre? Possibly.

[jazzbo]

I think it's an interesting debate because it implies that there is loft and status to being in a jazz band, but not a cover band. While this is most probably accurate, I think we need to remove the negativity associated with cover bands. I have heard many a musician scoff at cover band musicians, often bragging that they "write their own material." Yes, but have you heard that material? Simplistic, lacking in any true musical knowledge, and one-dimensional.

To be a successful cover band musician one must master a variety of techniques and styles. Hell, if I'm playing an R&B cover show, I've got to cop Jamerson, Dunn, Kaye, Watts, and many more giants of the bass in one evening. Sure, some dude can "write" an original line for an emo band, (or whatever the kids are playing nowadays), but can they play Jamerson's "What's Going On?" with conviction and style?

It's time that we recognize that many cover band musicans are far more talented than their alternatives that "don't play covers." But then, many of us listen to music with our eyes more than our ears.

[Phil Smith]

You have an original tune and then you have a cover of that tune which can be the same arrangement or different but it's still a cover of the tune, so technically a Jazz band playing standards is a cover band.