• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Contemporary Jazz Standards

Side note -- I was on a leads generation service for jazz gigs a while back. We were the top band in Orlando for that service. Then, we got knocked out of first place be a trio that took modern pop tunes and jazzified them. That apparently sold really well given the fact that people decided to hire that group rather than my own.
 
You can't turn a doublewide trailer foundation into a mansion and still have the trailer be part of the final deal. I guess you COULD - but then you'd have a trailer in the middle of your mansion's courtyard. :laugh: Yeah, you can add chords to something, but it doesn't change the bones. If it doesn't work in its simplest form, adding more chords won't necessarily make it work better - it just serves to make the jazz musician say 'look - I turned it into a jazz tune!' Now... how does it SOUND? Norwegian Wood isn't a great example because the Beatles' harmonic prowess was WAY more advanced in a lot of ways than most contemporary pop tunes. It was already a great song without adding anything else - but what Herbie added, tastefully and very specifically, works well. The Beatles were still rooted in a lot of traditional harmonic concepts, with some unique twists... which is why their material is perennially fruitful for improvisation. That's where the whole 'writing something that will last for 100+ years' part comes in.

Have you actually listened to modern jazz artists who interpret pop/rock tunes like Brad Mehldau, Robert Galsper, The Bad Plus, Christian McBride, Joshua Redman, etc?
 
Which shows that most truly 'contemporary' material from the past 30-35 years doesn't have the staying power of songs with more 'mobile' harmonies and melodies to keep people coming back to them to find something fresh in them.

Yeah I think you nailed it. The grunge stuff tends to work for casual audiences if you keep things short and mostly just state the melody but there's only so much you can do there. It's not my thing but I think that stuff tends to be more effective if you have a vocalist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JazznFunk
Fake books don't 'calcify' musical history.... they're just books with songs in them. How musicians structure their personal repertoires and how that blends with larger trends decides what songs truly become 'standards' in their particular genres. I find that what are accepted 'standards' varies from region to region in the country as well. Songs which are common on the bandstand in one area might not get played too often in others. YMMV.
I am not saying that fake books calcify HISTORY -- just the standards that musicians play. For example, there are a lot of bands that play Pat Metheny's music. This is probably because he has put so much effort into creating his Pat Metheny Songbook and Pat Metheny Fake Book. People will simply not put the effort into transcribing most songs and therefore, won't play songs that aren't charted -- unless they are easy.
 
I think most of the songs in the real book were popular music at one time; average people recognized them. ...
Well, yes and no; while a reasonable effort was made to include a good number of standards, since Steve Swallow was one of the drivers behind it, we got all those essentially unplayable Steve Swallow tunes that no one's ever played a second time out of the RB. There are a considerable number of other such tunes, the ones everyone skips over.
 
Have you actually listened to modern jazz artists who interpret pop/rock tunes like Brad Mehldau, Robert Galsper, The Bad Plus, Christian McBride, Joshua Redman, etc?
Yeah, I have. Some do it well... some leave me flat. I prefer the original works of Mehldau, McBride, Redman, etc. They are themselves truly great contemporary JAZZ composers.
 
I am not saying that fake books calcify HISTORY -- just the standards that musicians play. For example, there are a lot of bands that play Pat Metheny's music. This is probably because he has put so much effort into creating his Pat Metheny Songbook and Pat Metheny Fake Book. People will simply not put the effort into transcribing most songs and therefore, won't play songs that aren't charted -- unless they are easy.
Well, the thing about Pat Metheny's stuff is that it's basically music for people who don't like music - the most advanced background ambient stuff there is. So it goes over real well in the restaurant gigs AND people enjoy playing it because it's got changes and stuff.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: JazznFunk
Side note -- I was on a leads generation service for jazz gigs a while back. We were the top band in Orlando for that service. Then, we got knocked out of first place be a trio that took modern pop tunes and jazzified them. That apparently sold really well given the fact that people decided to hire that group rather than my own.

But were they actually enjoyable? Would you listen to them if you were just casually hanging out?
 
Well, the thing about Pat Metheny's stuff is that it's basically music for people who don't like music - the most advanced background ambient stuff there is. So it goes over real well in the restaurant gigs AND people enjoy playing it because it's got changes and stuff.
Tell us you have only listened to a certain slice of Pat Metheny Group 80s material, versus his entire discography, without actually telling us. I take it you haven't listened to the following Metheny albums:

Bright Size Life
Watercolors
Pat Metheny Group (1st album)
American Garage
First Circle
80/81
Rejoicing (with Billy Higgins and Charlie Haden)
Song X
Question & Answer
Trio 99-->00
Trio LIVE
Day Trip

Grab the Metheny book and check out how intricate even some of those 'simple sounding' tunes are and get back to us.
 
Tell us you have only listened to a certain slice of Pat Metheny Group 80s material, versus his entire discography, without actually telling us. I take it you haven't listened to the following Metheny albums:

Bright Size Life
Watercolors
Pat Metheny Group (1st album)
American Garage
First Circle
80/81
Rejoicing (with Billy Higgins and Charlie Haden)
Song X
Question & Answer
Trio 99-->00
Trio LIVE
Day Trip

Grab the Metheny book and check out how intricate even some of those 'simple sounding' tunes are and get back to us.
Not saying it's not intricate, I'm just saying that most of it is perfectly suited for the dinner set. That's why it doesn't get you thrown out like playing, say, "Fables of Faubus" would; and yet there's enough interest there for the musicians, that they won't throw up in their bucket mutes like they would if you called "the all-Kenny-G set".
 
  • Like
Reactions: lordradish
Not saying it's not intricate, I'm just saying that most of it is perfectly suited for the dinner set. That's why it doesn't get you thrown out like playing, say, "Fables of Faubus" would; and yet there's enough interest there for the musicians, that they won't throw up in their bucket mutes like they would if you called "the all-Kenny-G set".
I stand by my original statement that you have not listened to most all of those specific records I mentioned, which are not 'smooth' in the derogatory definition you're lobbing out. Acknowledging the intricacy doesn't mean you've actually listened to the bulk of his discography. And those Group songs are very complex, and not likely to be done by someone playing 'the dinner set.' You're just displaying your ignorance of the bulk of Metheny's material. Some of it - the 80s Group work specifically - IS very much a bit 'smooth' even for my taste.... but the bulk of Metheny's 'real jazz' work is not that. The Group is its own thing, and a different vehicle than his trio/quartet work in general. But it sounds like you've got your mind all made up.
 
Ok, so you admit sometimes this idea works?
If by maybe 5-10% of the 'contemporary adaptations' 'working' fits your definitions of 'sometimes works', then sure. But for my ears and taste, that's 90-95% of it that doesn't. I'd say 'rarely' instead of 'sometimes.'

And - because I'm admittedly a huge fan of Mehldau - I'd say Brad's 'interpretations' work the best of anyone because Brad has discussed at length that he did not start out as a Jazz musician. He was heavily into more rock and pop artists and then worked his way into Jazz, so he has found probably the best way to blend it all together. So for the approach to work on a broader scale, I find that the musicians who have a healthy original appreciation for, and experience playing the styles they are pushing into Jazz are who do it best.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: PBandJazzBass
Well, yes and no; while a reasonable effort was made to include a good number of standards, since Steve Swallow was one of the drivers behind it, we got all those essentially unplayable Steve Swallow tunes that no one's ever played a second time out of the RB. There are a considerable number of other such tunes, the ones everyone skips over.
Fair. There are a lot of weird tunes in it along with the American songbook stuff. As you say, that’s the stuff nobody plays!
 
  • Like
Reactions: JazznFunk
Judging by your condescending tone, I’m assuming you’re older. By which I mean older jazz musicians have historically looked down on the ideas of the younger.

You judged wrong. I'm 44 and grew up listening to a lot of the 'contemporary' artists and their songs which people try and shoehorn into 'Jazz' and they just come out sounding forced and cheesy for various reasons. I've had people call some of them on gigs before and they just don't work, usually because improvising on those limited chords and static forms (and very basic harmonies) tend to sound forced. On rare occasions, songs do work.... and that depends on the original song in question and its specific qualities. I mentioned some of them in an earlier reply.

That's not an age thing - it's a musical thing. And stating a position strongly, directly, isn't condescending.... it's just being direct.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lordradish
You judged wrong. I'm 44 and grew up listening to a lot of the 'contemporary' artists and their songs which people try and shoehorn into 'Jazz' and they just come out sounding forced and cheesy for various reasons. That's not an age thing - it's a musical thing. And stating a position strongly, directly, isn't condescending.... it's just being direct.

So I am stating my position that you have a narrow minded attitude towards jazz.
 
So I am stating my position that you have a narrow minded attitude towards jazz.

I'm pointing out that just because people want so strongly for everything to be 'Jazz', doesn't everything mean everything is (or should be) because of musical/compositional intent. Sometimes, stuff just doesn't work. I'll give you a very specific record or 2 where I think the concept of 'contemporary music forced into Jazz' falls flat 100%:

I adore John Scofield as a player and composer, but his record 'Country For Old Men', where he did contemporary/90s country songs and a few other related pieces, sounds absolutely cheesy and forced to me. It's the only record in his discography which is totally unlistenable for me. It surprised me, because John can do the 'country' thing pretty well with his original material which leans that way. But this didn't work.... for me.

Joshua Redman covered 'Tears In Heaven' on his 2nd record, 'Wish'. It's well crafted, but despite the fact that he has Charlie Haden, Pat Metheny, and Billy Higgins on it with him, it's my least favorite tune on the record. It feels forced... like a record company exec said 'hey, ya gotta do a contemporary tune as one of our 'young lions!'.

Not trying to be combative... which is why I'm providing examples of things which helped form my perspective.
 
Last edited: