• 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.

Jazz musicians are significantly overrated.

#282
Tupac said:
I can't believe this thread is still going. I gave up reading around page 10 :eyebrow:

Actually, younger people are Link Removed with the current tastes at the time, which probably has something to do with it. Of course, that's just speaking generally.
Click to expand...

Haha looks like your about 35 years ahead of the curve. Your already saying how other styles are overrated!
 
#283
scorpionldr said:
Oh, certainly I must be hoisting myself to the level of pompous @$$ because I actually talk about a form of music being listenable or not.

Listenable-the ability of the mind the follow and maintain interest in the music composed.

Jazz- a genre with a few big names out there but overall several players get carried away with the science and theory of music rather than the melody.

Bach wrote music at the age of 14, whch he was awarded a scholarship for, would you ever consider him overrated?

Mozart was composing music by the age of 12, possibly even before, would you say he's overrated?

And yet here we sit on an internet forum talking about whether heavy metal or Jazz utilizes more skill or is more entertaining or what in the hell you'd like to use to bash the other genre.

The abilities of the young, whether it was 4 years ago or 400 years ago, have always proven to gain a following playing music. You can't deny younger minds are more flexible.

The work ethic of the young has deteriorated some, yes. I'd say say the ability to gain talents and write music hasn't.

So pretty please excuse me if I've said anything that might actually cause your mind to expand.
Click to expand...
Your condescending demeanor notwithstanding, I do not require your assistance to perceive what is listenable and what is not from my perspective. Nothing you are likely to write in an internet forum is likely to cause my mind to expand, but thanks for trying. That's not to say that my mind is incapable of expanding, but who are you to presume to instruct me in such matters?

Certainly there have been young musicians who have contributed much to the world of music (some, like Sarah Jarosz ([Invalid or Expired Link Removed]) are indeed stunning), but to make the blanket statement that the work of the young is all somehow better from some sort of objective perspective is a sweeping generalization that I simply do not agree with. Simply put, that you find the work of young musicians more "listenable" (whatever that means) in no way establishes that that is true to everyone else's ears in general and mine in particular. It is entirely subjective.

So sue me. :D
 
#284
You offer this:

scorpionldr said:
Jazz- a genre with a few big names out there but overall several players get carried away with the science and theory of music rather than the melody.
Click to expand...

Which is clearly subjective and unquantifiable.

Then in the same post you give this

scorpionldr said:
So pretty please excuse me if I've said anything that might actually cause your mind to expand.
Click to expand...

You can't have it both ways.....
 
#285
I'm a jazzer. Also fusion and funk. Not much of a rocker. To be honest, I think that the way jazz players are educated these days gives them tons of tools in terms of technique and theory, bit to too many technique and theory become ends in themselves. It's easy to be enticed by theory and technique. But the artistry in bass playing comes down to the ability to lay down the deepest groove possible---no matter what the situation. I've heard chops metal guys fall into the same mistaken priorities as the jazzers.To be honest, technique and theory aren't that hard--you can do that in a couple of years. Just look at the kids with insane technique coming out of college.

Learning accuracy of placement and a deep understanding of groove is a lifelong pursuit that's not as easily accomplished. And to me (after spending a large part of my career as som,ewhat of a chopsmeister) that's what makes the artisty of bass playing. There are reasons why guys like Leland Sklar and Tony Levin get called for a gazillion sessions. And Pino Paladino. None of them are great soloists or velocity masters but they get called (and Pino gets as much rock as funk and R&B) for all of the sessions because they understand the art of getting a deep pocket in any situation.
James Jamerson had insane chops. People don't notice but if you try to play his fills that sound so effortless and never detract from the groove--you'll find that some are nearly impossible to play. He wasn't a velocity soloist, but every aspect of his technique (as wacky as some of his stuff was) was insanely deep in the groove.
Or Bootsy. Not a soloist or chopsmeister, but just try to play lines and fills that he makes sound simple ---his chops are astounding, but not in the way a metal shredder may notice or understand.
I'm going to get in trouble for this. I'm going to compare two bassists that I listened to as a kid. I never liked Entwistle. (sp?) Never dug his pocket. Lots of notes but at least for me---not the depth where I want it.
Then take John Paul Jones. If you listen to Zeppelin 2---you realize this guy can tear up any style. With sick accuracy.
 
#286
+1000

It's the groove and it can be a slow groove.

As a long time jazzer too I used to play with a monster jazz drummer - quite respected - he taught me how to swing at rediculous tempos like 300bpm and tge tricks to kick that groove perpetually forward.

But the most fun we ever had was taking a standard ballad and playing it as sloooow as possible - without loosing the GROOVE - we would laugh uncomtrollably with big giant spaces/air - we joked you could play a hole of golf before the next downbeat - never leaving the groove - it made the soloists even more thoughtful and deep in their ideas.
 
#287
carlthegroover said:
I still don't see why technical difficulty and playing at the speed of light are considered to be so important or superior. That's not what I look for when I hear music, and I'm sure most people out there (non musicians) aren't exactly looking for a "song that changes time signatures every measure".
Click to expand...

If you can play slowly, it does not mean you can play swiftly; your dexterity and stamina may not be able to keep up.

However if you can play swiftly you by default can then play slowly (unless you ar Skwisgar and Toki). It's easy as sleep to get the the right next note when you have time to Google where you should go before you need to get there.

In my book, if you can't groove or dance to it, it's not my thing. What good is music if you can't let yourself loose in it? Leave the complexity and the over-thinking to mathematicians.
Click to expand...

Check out all these people not grooving or dancing to it, they seem so resricted (skip to 0:55):
CANNIBAL CORPSE - HAMMER SMASHED FACE - MOSH PIT MAYHEM FEST- live - YouTube
 
#289
Tupac said:
I can't believe this thread is still going. I gave up reading around page 10 :eyebrow:

Actually, younger people are Link Removed with the current tastes at the time, which probably has something to do with it. Of course, that's just speaking generally.
Click to expand...
Don't confuse "biological" with "sociological". That article doesn't actually discuss any scientific study beyond a survey which "demonstrated that musical tastes tend to narrow during old age" (an idea that certainly isn't new). It says nothing about why people may have provided the answers they did during the survey. In any event, the original statement I took issue with was simply too sweeping and in need of clarification for me to accept as any kind of reasonable comment.
 
#292
ggunn said:
Your condescending demeanor notwithstanding, I do not require your assistance to perceive what is listenable and what is not from my perspective. Nothing you are likely to write in an internet forum is likely to cause my mind to expand, but thanks for trying. That's not to say that my mind is incapable of expanding, but who are you to presume to instruct me in such matters?

Certainly there have been young musicians who have contributed much to the world of music (some, like Sarah Jarosz ([Invalid or Expired Link Removed]) are indeed stunning), but to make the blanket statement that the work of the young is all somehow better from some sort of objective perspective is a sweeping generalization that I simply do not agree with. Simply put, that you find the work of young musicians more "listenable" (whatever that means) in no way establishes that that is true to everyone else's ears in general and mine in particular. It is entirely subjective.

So sue me. :D
Click to expand...

RUSH is a perfect example. I hardly like much of their earlier stuff, finding it raw...too raw. Over the years they have benefited from maturity...now their music really flows and shows sophistication and polish...something they lacked a bit in thier first 4 albums. There is something to be said for a mature artist. Though, there is also something to be said for a young, un-jaded mind.
 
#293
Duke Ellington said something like - if it sounds good, it is good. I am confused by the whole thread...

Classical music is difficult because execution is very important.

Metal is difficult because execution is very important.

Jazz is difficult because execution is very important.

I have never played metal because it doesn't appeal to me. I love classical and jazz because it speaks to me and so I play both. The skill set is different for both - both musical and non-musical. And so I would guess that the skill set is different for metal as well. However, to state that one genre has players that are over or under rated is silly. Each genre has top players, like soccer or chess or fishing, each requiring a different skill set to perform at the highest level (I hate ice fishing... sorry). Although all of the musical genres above are based on the diatonic scale (we have not drifted into 20 tones scales or other world music elements I hope), each is different enough to warrent their own approaches and thus their own champions. In classical music, most of my counterparts would classify Western music as either classical or non-classical, although most also play anything that pays - except maybe metal or bluegrass - hummmmm, metal cello played arco.

So the over-under-sideways thing depends on your perspective - see quote above. Yes, history has its place in defining issues of greatness and such, but try to take away the radio from a toothless mountain man who is listening to his favorite bluegrass band on a Sunday afternoon and you will get buckshot in your cheeks, the back ones. I truly hope we are done here.:hiding:
 
#296
icecycle66 said:
If you can play slowly, it does not mean you can play swiftly; your dexterity and stamina may not be able to keep up.

However if you can play swiftly you by default can then play slowly (unless you ar Skwisgar and Toki). It's easy as sleep to get the the right next note when you have time to Google where you should go before you need to get there.
Click to expand...

For the sake of young players I have to comment. As a bit of a "chops" player when I was young I also used to believe "if you can play 16th notes quarter notes should be easy"
Boy was I wrong. It takes incredible chops to play quarter notes accurately and with the perfect beat placement. In jazz what we're essentially paid to do is play repetive quarter notes. But having the perfect weight and control is way harder than you'd think. I hear kids come out of college with blistering technique but when they walk the feel is inconsistant in terms of accuracy of attack, weight and beat placement. It's really hard to do well!
I'm not saying that developing dexterity is not a high priority. It's just the rhythmic control to walk at a very slow tempo and have it feel perfect is a more important aspect of technique that is often overlooked by young players. Myself included!
 
#297
Very interesting conversation here.

My contribution? Two words...Dick. Lovgren.

Awesome pick attack metal player - the best out there IMO. Utterly peerless. But he is also a highly respected, very experienced classically trained finger style jazz dude. The man is simply a beast.
 
#298
Jazz musicians have to make something difficult sound easy. Prog musicians like to make something actually not that difficult sound difficult.

I think the OP would find if he tried to play jazz that it's a lot more difficult than counting to an odd number.
 
#300
thanks, man
One other thing. I was trained as a classical player. After high school I was studying in Europe. I had a teacher who wouldn't let me even try to play a piece at tempo. He would make me play the entire piece at a snail's pace until I could play it perfectly at that pace. Funny thing is---after I could nail it at a ridiculously slow pace the first time at temp I could play it near perfectly. It's all about muscle memory. Speed doesn't dictate how your muscles memorize. Perfect execution is. If you play it accurately slowly you'd be surprised at how easy it is playing at tempo. Young players tend to learn difficult pieces (no matter what genre) at tempo. They kindof learn it. They usually make the same small mistakes at the same places. That's because that's how their muscles learned them. The great Alain Caron as I've heard only practices at a slow tempo. And his velocity chops are insane!
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back