• 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 free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Does not being able to play jazz = being a poor bass player?

#161
Does learning how to drive a stick shift make you a better driver? If it does, probably only minimally. It does cause you to learn how the engine's power band and gear ratios work together though. Doesn't mean you can't still drive an automatic, or that someone who only drives automatics and barely thinks about engine power band and gear ratios is automatically a worse driver. Just different techniques to a similar purpose.

Jazz will make you learn more skill and theory without taking anything away from your current style. Undoubtedly, it will teach you things that can help you better understand and appreciate what you currently play, maybe even motivate you to take a newer and more creative approach to your current repertoire. Not getting it down won't hurt all the progress you've made to this point, or prevent you from further progress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rufus.K
#163
Bassbeater said:
Dbling Down!
Music theory does not exist without music.
Music does exist without music theory.
Theory heavy music tends to serve the books instead of the ears IMO. A lot of jazz sounds like scale exercises to me. I hear a lot of accomplished jazz players tell me all rock music sounds the same, so I think it's just a matter of cultural taste and acclimation really.
Click to expand...
There is enough ignorance about jazz for some to conclude that if it sounds like jazz it must be high quality. Like every other music style there are good and bad examples. Having a high understanding of theory doesn't automatically make your musical choices good ones.
For instance, jazz singers can sometimes forsake the lyrical meaning of a song in favour of improvisional innovation which in my estimation is a mistake. Instrumental versions are open to whatever creative impulses you may choose to indulge in but words have meaning - they make a song more than a melody. While jazz is a highly developed musical form, it isn't necessarily what we should all aspire to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bassbeater and mantaraya
#164
I would bet very few of the people who say playing jazz doesn't help improve your musicianship have ever seriously studied jazz.

I play both on a weekly basis. I know that for the most part, when I've learned a rock tune, for the most part, I can relax and play it - not necessarily on auto pilot, but I can relax. With jazz, I can never let my guard down - many more melodic and rhythmic options. Never mind any tune can go anywhere during the solos. Your also have to understand the theory behind the changes.

So many great rock bassists have studied jazz.

I prefer listening to and playing rock - by a lot. But jazz has opened up my playing more than rock has.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rufus.K
#165
fdeck said:
In my view, very few people like jazz. In fact most people will find a polite way to say that they don't like it.

When people hear that I'm in a band, then I have to deal with the awkward conversation. They will try to be polite and sound enthusiastic, but you can tell they're really not into it. Or they list a bunch of restrictions on the kind of jazz that they like.
Click to expand...
Jazz is a very broad term these days. I listen to quite a bit of jazz but I don't like all of it. In fact there isn't any musical genre that I can say I like it all. When the term "jazz" covers areas like traditional, bebop, avant garde, cool jazz, jazz fusion and whatever, I wouldn't expect anybody to blindly accept it all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fdeck
#166
ficelles said:
In case nobody's yet said it, you don't need music theory to play jazz, not if you have a good ear and good musical instinct. Some of the greatest jazz players have been by-ear players with no formal musical education.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree with that completely. I've been playing jazz for 40 years if you count school jazz band. I don't know any theory beyond the identification of scales and what the chord symbols mean.

Every player has a list of things they can and can't do. The things you don't know how to do, limit you.

Not knowing theory means I'm up against a wall if the harmony for a tune gets more complex than a certain level. For instance if you throw weird modern changes at me, I will have a hard time soloing on the tune unless I take it home and study it hard. Two other players in my band can just fly through those changes. Now they did not just learn that theory in a classroom and take an exam. The thing that's kind of unique about jazz in my opinion is that you have to practice the theory, by getting your theory knowledge programmed into your eyes, ears, and hands. It's like being fluent in a language.

I'm fluent that way in my professional field (can "follow the changes" in math and physics), but not in jazz. It means that if you hire me for a typical real book gig, you will never notice my shortcoming, and I bring a lot of things that get me called back for that kind of work. For those gigs, ear and musical instinct are enough. I may actually also be a better reader than some of the degreed pro's because I have honed that skill all my life. And I don't completely lack formal training -- I had years of classical lessons as a kid.

The by-ear players with no musical training, if they survive playing jazz today, put themselves into a situation where they are calling the shots, i.e., avoiding exposure to stuff that they can't play. This places a greater emphasis on things like band management, singing, and so forth. Pointing out those people may be a case of survivorship bias.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ Bebop and Bassbeater
#167
People listen to what they listen to. People prefer to stay in their comfort zone... Just is....

If one never listens to jazz, it is likely they will not like jazz.
For the most part, they cannot fathom the progressions and or phrasing because their ear is not trained to 'hear those progressions/phrasing'. Read that last part again.

The typical ear here cannot begin to fathom some eastern music as it does not follow the twelve tones of western music.

I have posted previously, putting a 7th in a chord at one time in the past could get one lit up at the stake for heresy. Folks could not fathom that evil sound...so it was evil and of the devil....

I remember playing stuff like Weather Report, Chick, Herbie, Miles, Stanley, etc. on the stereo at the shop when I was a teen and some musicians that would be in the shop would look almost in pain. They had never heard stuff like that. To them, it was mostly random noise, when it wasn't...

Some folks cannot listen to classical/symphony as they can make no sense of it... Interesting sitting in class going through scores identifying progressions... seeing the same old progressions we hear and play all the time with a few twists and turns tossed in... Some music just continuously flows with notes and passing tones through the progressions like a flowing stream instead of periodic visitation like just a few hopscotch blocks that most of us are accustomed to hearing/playing...

One never knows what one might learn by easing out of their comfort zone a bit...whether playing or listening... Some are always jumping out of their comfort zone, some just venture out on occasion, some won't budge with a nuke going off...

Whatever makes one happy... Gotta float your own boat...
 
#169
fdeck said:
Yes, I agree with that completely. I've been playing jazz for 40 years if you count school jazz band. I don't know any theory beyond the identification of scales and what the chord symbols mean.

Every player has a list of things they can and can't do. The things you don't know how to do, limit you.

Not knowing theory means I'm up against a wall if the harmony for a tune gets more complex than a certain level. For instance if you throw weird modern changes at me, I will have a hard time soloing on the tune unless I take it home and study it hard. Two other players in my band can just fly through those changes. Now they did not just learn that theory in a classroom and take an exam. The thing that's kind of unique about jazz in my opinion is that you have to practice the theory, by getting your theory knowledge programmed into your eyes, ears, and hands. It's like being fluent in a language.

I'm fluent that way in my professional field (can "follow the changes" in math and physics), but not in jazz. It means that if you hire me for a typical real book gig, you will never notice my shortcoming, and I bring a lot of things that get me called back for that kind of work. For those gigs, ear and musical instinct are enough. I may actually also be a better reader than some of the degreed pro's because I have honed that skill all my life. And I don't completely lack formal training -- I had years of classical lessons as a kid.

The by-ear players with no musical training, if they survive playing jazz today, put themselves into a situation where they are calling the shots, i.e., avoiding exposure to stuff that they can't play. This places a greater emphasis on things like band management, singing, and so forth. Pointing out those people may be a case of survivorship bias.
Click to expand...
This about sums up my experience although you got deeper into jazz than I have... When in the past I've played jazz(never as a pro), my mediocre theory but otherwise solid playing and phrasing can be very frustrating to the others when playing with schooled jazz players. They want me to hit the books and keep at jazz. Turns out I mostly want to hit the ones, and extensive study of theory doesn't pay me back for time spent in the genres I pursue and enjoy.
 
#172
rufus.K said:
So many good answers.

I wouldn't expect Megadeth and Testament fans to have any interest in learning Grateful Dead songs...
Click to expand...

Had to pull this quote - cause I love 'deth and Testament - and Dream Theater, Metallica, Iron Maiden, Dream Evil, Kamelot, Threshold, Symphony X. . . and classical, and country....and jazz, especially fusion. . . and the Dead - they have some great songs.

BUT - I was purusing iTunes last night and came across a new disc/download that I know I have to get - the new Alex Skolnick Trio album. Modern'ish Jazz I suppose, but the samples sounded really great!! Anyway - Alex was the guitar player for Testament, starting when he was 16. And has a BfA in Jazz - and did a couple albums with one Michael Manring in a group called Attention Deficit. Great, albeit avant garde, jazz. :)

Anyway - the guitarist from Testament - is a jazzer. :) Cool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rufus.K
#173
It's not the ability to play jazz that is the difference. it's the knowledge of music theory and music education that counts. Sure,you can be a killer rock player and not know theory or be able to read a note- I have played with tons of these guys, from old blues players who know how to tune their guitar and that's it, to guys with doctorates in music. And remember the Beatles had to learn how to write songs from self education. In the end, it is the application of what you know to your music, that counts. It is my opinion that a formal music education takes a while to sink in and become automatic, so you are not thinking in terms of modes and scaled any more. It's that stage that sometimes trips up players who are, instead of making musical statements when they play, are thinking about the mechanics - the scales,modes etc., instead. Tip - always play from your heart. Feel what you do and if you don;t feel it, then don't play it..
 
#174
Pat Harris said:
A lot of bassists claiming to play jazz can't play jazz, so not being able to play it isn't really a problem. Will it help you with ear training and a whole slew of other skills? Sure.

I'd go a bit further and add that, "If you can play jazz, you can play anything," is a terrible adage. There are great jazz musicians that ONLY play jazz, and that's totally cool. If they only listen to jazz, they are probably not the people to call to play for your 70s rock cover band-- totally different musical language. Flame away, but as much as Miles Davis wanted to play rock and funk, I think he missed the mark entirely. I love the results, but those albums are coming from a place that has nothing to do with early American blues.

The best musicians (of any genre) will be the first to tell you that they are probably NOT the person to call when what they bring to the table doesn't fit the gig.
Click to expand...
How would describe the music on the album "kinda blue"? The tune "So What"?
 
#176
"This is Be-Bop, even though you think it doesn't sound like that."
George Duke.
Be-Bop Tango (Of The Old Jazzmen's Church)
f889ca95a2151b12c4ea4ebe3d31c828-tb.jpg
Frank Zappa
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back