Contemporary Jazz Standards

[PBandJazzBass]

I'm pointing out that just because people want so strongly for everything to be 'Jazz', and that not everything is (or can be) because of musical/compositional intent. Sometimes, stuff just doesn't work. I'll give you a very specific record 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 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.

I’m not saying everything can be or should be jazz, I’m saying that making statements like “90-95% it doesn’t work” discourages and stifles creative freedom. Whatever his motivations, John Scofield wanted to try something as an artist and he did. Whether or not you, or anyone else, approves is not relevant.

 

[turf3]

One of the problems is that we don't have the same quantity and quality of Broadway tunes that we did up till the 70s or so. That's a major major source of the "jazz standards". Another thing siphoning off eneregy from composing new jazz tunes is the very large cadre of musicians who are dedicated only to playing the golden oldies.

 

[JazznFunk]

I’m not saying everything can be or should be jazz, I’m saying that making statements like “90-95% it doesn’t work” discourages and stifles creative freedom. Whatever his motivations, John Scofield wanted to try something as an artist and he did. Whether or not you, or anyone else, approves is not relevant.

I don't care what people want to try... they are free to do it. I support that freedom. It doesn't mean it works or that I'll listen past a single spin of the record, but I'll listen at least once if the source material is something I already appreciated in its original form. My personal statement that "90-95%' of attempts at forcing contemporary pop/rock/country into Jazz don't work is not stifling anyone's creative freedom. if that's true, then I have way more influence over people than I ever knew. What is 100% true is that you took this discussion way more personally than you should have.

 

[PBandJazzBass]

I don't care what people want to try... they are free to do it. I support that freedom. It doesn't mean it works or that I'll listen past a single spin of the record, but I'll listen at least once if the source material is something I already appreciated in its original form. My personal statement that "90-95%' of attempts at forcing contemporary pop/rock/country into Jazz don't work is not stifling anyone's creative freedom. if that's true, then I have way more influence over people than I ever knew. What is 100% true is that you took this discussion way more personally than you should have.

I don’t believe for one second that you didn’t intend for me to take your original comment towards the beginning personally.

But thank you. I always appreciate being told what I think.

 

[JazznFunk]

I don’t believe for one second that you didn’t intend for me to take your original comment towards the beginning personally.

But thank you. I always appreciate being told what I think.

It wasn't, and that wasn't the intent. I reread my original reply to you - three times. There was nothing specifically pointed at you. It was all generalities related to the music and concepts being discussed. Sorry you took it that way. And, so we're clear, you lobbed the first true insult of this thread at me with that 'must be a generational thing' bit of snark.

 

[PBandJazzBass]

It wasn't, and that wasn't the intent. I reread my original reply to you - three times. There was nothing specifically pointed at you. It was all generalities related to the music and concepts being discussed. Sorry you took it that way. And, so we're clear, you lobbed the first true insult of this thread at me with that 'must be a generational thing' bit of snark.

I apologize. It is probably best for everyone if I retire from the forum.

 

[HolmeBass]

I bet “normal” people would dig that. I would add some classic 60’s soul jazz like Mercy, Mercy, Mercy and Song For My Father, and look into Medeski, Martin, and Wood, and also John Scofield. A Go Go is a great funky album MMW did with Scofield and all of it would fit.

 

[lordradish]

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.

I find Metheny to be a bit of an enigma. He's one of the best guitarists ever, and his stuff can be straight up jazz, fusion, or Weather Channel music. I find most of his 80's/90's output to be in the last category. Those first two albums of the PMG are the gold standard for fretless playing IMO and are ingrained in my DNA. Good list... I'd also put The Way Up on there. It's epic.

 

[JazznFunk]

I find Metheny to be a bit of an enigma. He's one of the best guitarists ever, and his stuff can be straight up jazz, fusion, or Weather Channel music. I find most of his 80's/90's output to be in the last category. Those first two albums of the PMG are the gold standard for fretless playing IMO and are ingrained in my DNA. Good list... I'd also put The Way Up on there. It's epic.

And Metheny knows it, too. He knows he's gone in so many different directions and is okay with it. I'm not a fan of a big portion of the 80s output, but there are high spots. I respect him for doing the 'smooth' Group stuff and then totally taking a left turn and doing 'Song X' and 'Zero Tolerance For Silence'.... stuff he knows will alienate over half of his fanbase in some cases. I never saw a Group show live where they played any of the smooth 80s stuff.... maybe Minuano 6/8, but that was it.

 

[fdeck]

I think one of the reasons it's so hard to get consensus on a topic like this is that songs that become part of regular rotation in bands' repertoires are partly dependent on the widespread availability of tunes in sheet music format. I don't believe a lot of the "standards" I played back when I was gigging for 10 years would have made it into the repertoire if the sheet music wasn't easily available in fake books.

One book I read on the history of fake books indicated that the presence of music in a fake book calcifies musical history and what is considered a "standard". This implies that the mere presence of songs in a fake book encourages the adoption of such tunes as a standard part of a musician's repertoire. No widespread availability of the tune in chart format = reduced chances the song will be played and become a standard. This pattern has been reduced somewhat with Hal Leonard producing some six Real Book volumes (which expands the availability of tunes, and therefore, reduces the probability an individual tune will be played.

I think there's an element of truth here, and is my least favorite aspect of playing jazz. Sight reading easy tunes on the bandstand is the lowest common denominator of jazz gig, and should only be needed as a last resort.

I still take those gigs, and they're usually enjoyable. Often, otherwise busy players will take those gigs to fill in holes in their schedules, and so you can meet some fine players who can take it to another level. The fake books stay put away, or the bandleader brings them in case someone needs them.

A modest stack of fake books is 1500+ tunes. We'll never run out of tunes. And given the economics right now, musicians won't go out and buy more fake books if they don't expect to use them, either at home or on the bandstand. People expect stuff to be free.

My two main bands right now, both rehearse, and work outside of the "real book gig" format. One is a 19 piece big band that has a huge library of charts spanning an entire century of jazz, including new material. The other has two members who both compose and arrange. Even when we play a standard, the sheets are pretty heavily marked up by the time we're ready to perform them. And I think this level of effort results in a better audience reaction, even when we're not degreed pro's.

Money, music, hang. The money's not there any more. The hang can be taken care of. It has to be for the music, and for the audience.

 

[PauFerro]

I would like to continue asking if anyone has songs they think belong in a Contemporary Jazz Fake Book.

 

[PauFerro]

I find Metheny to be a bit of an enigma. He's one of the best guitarists ever, and his stuff can be straight up jazz, fusion, or Weather Channel music. I find most of his 80's/90's output to be in the last category. Those first two albums of the PMG are the gold standard for fretless playing IMO and are ingrained in my DNA. Good list... I'd also put The Way Up on there. It's epic.

I posted another thread where I said "I don't GET Pat Metheny anymore". I really dug his early work ending with Speaking of Now (The Way Up is growing on me, but still not a favorite). Anything after that I can't relate to and don't enjoy at all - not one bit.

I even spent a Saturday listening to EVERY song in the Pat Metheny Real Book to get acquainted with this catalog. Out of the 147 tunes, there were only about 28 that I could see my bands, through the years, even playing. There were a ton of slow ballads with melodies that I could forget in an instant, along with the 28 gems -- which, out of respect, I admit is a substantial amount of gems. Some of the tunes were just weird and even after visualizing how my local band would play them (perhaps simplifying structure and just preserving the melody), I couldn't see there being any enthusiasm for the 147-28 = 119 other tunes.

I was also confused about why he left out a lot of tunes that I think are playable by average Joe musicians like me and would seem to belong in a Pat Metheny Real Book. It's as if he needed input from the hundreds and hundreds of local gigging musicians to get the right perspective on what tunes to include in such as Real Book. Fortunately you can get a lot of these songs from his Pat Metheny Songbook.

I did some AI research, and AI indicated that part of Pat's intent in creating the Pat Metheny Real Book was to represent the span of his work and not to create a "greatest hits" or by implication, a catalog of playable songs. That to me is a mistake if you want to create a legacy in the repertoire of standards of average musicians after you pass on from this world. That would be my goal.

I would even consider creating an album of songs that are geared toward intermediate musicians so they play them for the long term. Relatively simple song structure, strong melodies that can be played in a variety of styles, and that don't require complex orchestration.

 

[PauFerro]

But were they actually enjoyable? Would you listen to them if you were just casually hanging out?

I don't think whether I would listen to them is important -- it's whether the people who hired the trio I mentioned liked them. Apparently they did after listening to their sample songs on their profile.

 

[JazznFunk]

I posted another thread where I said "I don't GET Pat Metheny anymore". I really dug his early work ending with Speaking of Now (The Way Up is growing on me, but still not a favorite). Anything after that I can't relate to and don't enjoy at all - not one bit.

I even spent a Saturday listening to EVERY song in the Pat Metheny Real Book to get acquainted with this catalog. Out of the 147 tunes, there were only about 28 that I could see my bands, through the years, even playing. There were a ton of slow ballads with melodies that I could forget in an instant, along with the 28 gems -- which, out of respect, I admit is a substantial amount of gems. Some of the tunes were just weird and even after visualizing how my local band would play them (perhaps simplifying structure and just preserving the melody), I couldn't see there being any enthusiasm for the 147-28 = 119 other tunes.

I was also confused about why he left out a lot of tunes that I think are playable by average Joe musicians like me and would seem to belong in a Pat Metheny Real Book. It's as if he needed input from the hundreds and hundreds of local gigging musicians to get the right perspective on what tunes to include in such as Real Book. Fortunately you can get a lot of these songs from his Pat Metheny Songbook.

I did some AI research, and AI indicated that part of Pat's intent in creating the Pat Metheny Real Book was to represent the span of his work and not to create a "greatest hits" or by implication, a catalog of playable songs. That to me is a mistake if you want to create a legacy in the repertoire of standards of average musicians after you pass on from this world. That would be my goal.

I would even consider creating an album of songs that are geared toward intermediate musicians so they play them for the long term. Relatively simple song structure, strong melodies that can be played in a variety of styles, and that don't require complex orchestration.

'AI research' is not research, first and foremost.

I have that first edition 'Pat Metheny Real Book' (which is not the same as the one put out by Hal Leonard) and agree with its intent.... I bought it a few months after it came out in late 1999/early 2000. Pat wanted to use the process he had already begun of cataloging, streamlining, and re-transcribing a lot of his work into a more usable form for himself and for others. THAT is his legacy - and it's a solid one. Probably one of the most important modern/contemporary Jazz composers and guitarists of the 20th/21st centuries IMO. The intent was not to create a 'fakebook', but an omnibus work to collect his writings in one place..... for the most part. That was 25 years ago. More recently, Hal Leonard created the newer 'The Pat Metheny Fakebook' which has a lot of the same tunes, yet leaves out a lot of the ones that no small group would ever reasonably attempt.... maybe that book would be more your speed.

I'm glad that no one gets to dictate to Pat what direction his work should go in, except for Pat. I always remind people - repeatedly - that the Group is one thing.... Pat's trio, etc. work is another. For me, the true essence of Metheny and what he's all about is found in his trio and duo work.

 

[JazznFunk]

I don't think whether I would listen to them is important -- it's whether the people who hired the trio I mentioned liked them. Apparently they did after listening to their sample songs on their profile.

Well, there's no accounting for taste. That's for sure.

 

[lordradish]

I posted another thread where I said "I don't GET Pat Metheny anymore". I really dug his early work ending with Speaking of Now (The Way Up is growing on me, but still not a favorite). Anything after that I can't relate to and don't enjoy at all - not one bit.

I even spent a Saturday listening to EVERY song in the Pat Metheny Real Book to get acquainted with this catalog. Out of the 147 tunes, there were only about 28 that I could see my bands, through the years, even playing. There were a ton of slow ballads with melodies that I could forget in an instant, along with the 28 gems -- which, out of respect, I admit is a substantial amount of gems. Some of the tunes were just weird and even after visualizing how my local band would play them (perhaps simplifying structure and just preserving the melody), I couldn't see there being any enthusiasm for the 147-28 = 119 other tunes.

I was also confused about why he left out a lot of tunes that I think are playable by average Joe musicians like me and would seem to belong in a Pat Metheny Real Book. It's as if he needed input from the hundreds and hundreds of local gigging musicians to get the right perspective on what tunes to include in such as Real Book. Fortunately you can get a lot of these songs from his Pat Metheny Songbook.

I did some AI research, and AI indicated that part of Pat's intent in creating the Pat Metheny Real Book was to represent the span of his work and not to create a "greatest hits" or by implication, a catalog of playable songs. That to me is a mistake if you want to create a legacy in the repertoire of standards of average musicians after you pass on from this world. That would be my goal.

I would even consider creating an album of songs that are geared toward intermediate musicians so they play them for the long term. Relatively simple song structure, strong melodies that can be played in a variety of styles, and that don't require complex orchestration.

I don't see it as a mistake, if his intent was to have a big compilation of his work, nor do I think "create a legacy in the repertoire of standards of average musicians" was his intent (nor did it have to be). Bach didn't do that, either. Most of his music is complex - that means a lot of average musicians simply might not be able to play it, and I'm fine with it, as I'm up for the challenge in some instances. There's always the Pat Metheny Fakebook for the less challenging stuff.

 

[PauFerro]

As I reflect on this, I think the probability of a songbook like this being successful is probably pretty low from a commercial perspective. I think what probably happens in a band is that a musician either transcribes or finds the music somewhere and convinces the band to play it. Often this is the most accomplished musician in the band or someone with leadership influence.

Then, the person who sourced or transcribed the song makes copies for everyone.

A frustration is that there are too many fingers in the pie when it comes to the legal distribution of a song book. For example, the retailer takes 40-50% of the price, then the company that administers the rights (if any) like Hal Leonard takes a cut, and then the publisher takes another cut and splits it with the composer. It doesn't leave much for the guy that compiled it and paid for the print rights, or the composer for that matter.

Now you can market it yourself, cutting out the retailer, but it's hard to get the scale needed to make it pay -- particularly since the administrator of the print rights wants between $50-$150 per song, or a price per copy with a 300- 500 copy minimum.

My conclusion is my best course of action is to compile your own book and simply use it for your own bands.

The advantage is that all the effort that went into sourcing, transcribing, and compiling the charts preserves your "competitive advantage" of having a unique repertoire.

 

[PauFerro]

'AI research' is not research, first and foremost.

Just curious if you could expand on this. Personally I think AI research is feasible because it pulls on a lot of sources and can synthesize multiple sources very well. It seems to find sources I don't find through general internet searches too.

 

[JazznFunk]

Just curious if you could expand on this. Personally I think AI research is feasible because it pulls on a lot of sources and can synthesize multiple sources very well. It seems to find sources I don't find through general internet searches too.

I've expanded on my thoughts about how AI can kick rocks plenty of times in past threads. Feel free to search for those threads and my replies. I'm not rehashing them again. Consider that AI 'finds' sources you don't find because.... those things don't exist. AI is noted for hallucinating and making up search results not rooted in any sort of factual basis or concrete data.

 

[DWBass]

I'd sure like to hear someone cover Curves Ahead by The Rippingtons!! I love the band but I don't think they have anything I would consider a 'standard'. Boney James? No. Mindi Abair? No.