• 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.

Modern Jazz is No Fun

Doesn't really matter to me if you have a degree from Berkley or Julliard, what matters is that what you play is interesting and soulful and is a real self expression in whatever musical landscape you prefer to explore. Really that's all we are is explorers not unlike the type that dared to cross the oceans or wander new lands just to see what was out there, we just do it in a musical landscape.

........or we just do covers to have fun and make a couple bucks, and that's OK too


What did John Lennon say about modern jazz.....oh yeah, they just play it to darn fast
 
Ok.
Maybe it is.
Maybe.
But only after you've done all the work to get there.

Some music forms start out with full intent to be fun.
And for all listening to have fun.
Rock.Punk.Dance music.

But that is not the intent if most Jazz musicians.
No one goes to Julliard or Berkley Music Academy with the primary intent of having fun.
The stage presence of jazz musicians in general is not one that says "Let's all get goofy and have a party"
If that's your definition of fun? I'd suggest you need to grow up a little.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FRoss6788
In my humblest of opinions, modern jazz music would be better if it got off my lawn. 90% of the material is stagnant and many original tunes are either avant gaurde (Boo (IMO)) or plain out contrafacts. I feel like the originators of bebop would feel like so so many of these people are just imitations of what a creative modern jazz pioneer was.
I have to ask what you mean when you say “modern?” Strictly, the term refers to architecture and fashion of the first half of the twentieth century. Through common usage it was applied to music and art and has come to mean contemporary which means “at the same time.” Duke Ellington, Lester Young, Miles Davis, Dave Brubeck and Charles Mingus are modern, Chick Corea, Herbie Hancock, Joe Zawinul, Stanley Clark and Mike Stern are not, if you want to be clear about categorizing the music of a period. Yeah, that’s a get-off-my-lawn POV.

Fake books in general (the Real Book series among them) are broad-strokes guides to helping a reasonably skilled musician apply his skill to music he may not [yet] have embedded in his memory. It isn’t a character flaw if you don’t have every jazz standard ever written in your repertoire, though some of the comments about fake books pretty much say it is. They are not academic references, they are not arrangements to be followed slavishly, they are certainly not dogma and they are a crutch only to lazy musicians ... or in the minds of those who feel it necessary to lord it over someone who may not have a specific bit of knowledge the “expert” has. Fake books are a tool in the musician’s toolbox. If it’s the right tool for a situation, use it; if it’s not the right tool, set it aside. If you belittle someone for playing from a fake book that says much more about the person you are than it does about your target.

I view fake books a little like I do the now-obsolete paper road maps. Decades ago you’d glance at a map, take I-80 to route 30 to 197 to 2 then turn left on Broadway. Today we get seven steps of instructions to get from home to the interstate on-ramp a mile and a half away. BS. Give me a fake book and a road map and let me play the gig. Tonight I need the chart for a couple songs, next month I probably won’t.
 
If that's your definition of fun? I'd suggest you need to grow up a little.
You need to go back and read my whole text!

No.
That's not MY definition.
But it is for a whole lot of people.

Do you think that those who play Rock,Punk and Dance music don't do it to have fun?("Rock and Roll all night.....and Party everday"?...)
Or for their fans to have fun?

Fusion and Jazz are my definition of sweat and hard work!
 
Last edited:
This is exactly why I don't consider myself an authentic jazz musician. I played out of the Real Book for decades and I have some of the simpler changes memorized by ear. But I don't believe I have the natural aptitude necessary to memorize the more complex changes. But memorizing all of those tunes wasn't necessary in my job.

My strength was my versatility across styles rather than my ability to excel in any one style. I was expected to sing and play in commercial cover bands, bow the string bass in concert band, and thump out parts in big band.

Playing tunes out of the Real Book was primarily done as back ground music rather than feature entertainment, so I needed to the ability to read the parts and solo over the changes. It would have been nice if I had the tunes memorized, but it was generally unnecessary. Early in my career it was fairly common for musicians to know most of the common tunes, but by the time I retired it was very rare. Almost everyone I worked with was generalist like me, instead of a jazz specialist.

Now there were times when I had up to 6 hours of pop music memorized to include the bass part and my background vocal line. But I think that requires a lot less sophistication than memorizing all the great tunes in the Real Book, especially if the intent is to memorize each song in multiple keys, which is what a hard core jazzer would do.

Yeah, times have changed. But if I get a call to put together something for a gig, I’ll be calling people that know tunes, otherwise they’re still fumbling with their real book or iPad when we’re already a chorus through Green Dolphin St. I’m not saying you have to know every tune, but bog standards like Stella, All the Things, Fly me to the moon, What is this thing, etc should be able to be played from memory, is that too much to ask?

I don’t want to be stuck playing Real book changes, people that know the tunes can pickup on any substitutions I’m doing (I will mention them if I remember), and that’s not going to happen if they’re concentrating on reading changes from a book.

A big part of the problem is that there are far fewer gigs around. Helps to be playing this stuff a lot, (if that’s what you want to do). Imo, to be able to play jazz, you have to play jazz, obviously you need your theory, etc, and theory is fine, in theory;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Wasnex
Ok.
Maybe it is.
Maybe.
But only after you've done all the work to get there.

Some music forms start out with full intent to be fun.
And for all listening to have fun.
Rock.Punk.Dance music.

But that is not the intent if most Jazz musicians.
No one goes to Julliard or Berkley Music Academy with the primary intent of having fun.
The stage presence of jazz musicians in general is not one that says "Let's all get goofy and have a party"

‘Fun’ is a way too glib term to express the emotional and intellectual experience of playing music. It can be much better than ‘fun’.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Watchootognbout
6AA0B5EA-7392-4C9F-B4B6-66E06647E4FA.jpeg
I have to ask what you mean when you say “modern?” Strictly, the term refers to architecture and fashion of the first half of the twentieth century. Through common usage it was applied to music and art and has come to mean contemporary which means “at the same time.” Duke Ellington, Lester Young, Miles Davis, Dave Brubeck and Charles Mingus are modern, Chick Corea, Herbie Hancock, Joe Zawinul, Stanley Clark and Mike Stern are not, if you want to be clear about categorizing the music of a period. Yeah, that’s a get-off-my-lawn POV.

Fake books in general (the Real Book series among them) are broad-strokes guides to helping a reasonably skilled musician apply his skill to music he may not [yet] have embedded in his memory. It isn’t a character flaw if you don’t have every jazz standard ever written in your repertoire, though some of the comments about fake books pretty much say it is. They are not academic references, they are not arrangements to be followed slavishly, they are certainly not dogma and they are a crutch only to lazy musicians ... or in the minds of those who feel it necessary to lord it over someone who may not have a specific bit of knowledge the “expert” has. Fake books are a tool in the musician’s toolbox. If it’s the right tool for a situation, use it; if it’s not the right tool, set it aside. If you belittle someone for playing from a fake book that says much more about the person you are than it does about your target.

I view fake books a little like I do the now-obsolete paper road maps. Decades ago you’d glance at a map, take I-80 to route 30 to 197 to 2 then turn left on Broadway. Today we get seven steps of instructions to get from home to the interstate on-ramp a mile and a half away. BS. Give me a fake book and a road map and let me play the gig. Tonight I need the chart for a couple songs, next month I probably won’t.

Yes. Didn’t Steve Swallow have a big hand in putting together the Real Book, for Berkeley?
It was originally intended as a reference book for Students, and funnily enough, has quite a few Steve Swallow tunes in it. Falling Grace is one of my all time favourite songs, played by Bill and Eddie on the duo album, ‘Intuition’. ‘Intuition’ is essential listening, imo, probably the one album I would take to a desert island.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, times have changed. But if I get a call to put together something for a gig, I’ll be calling people that know tunes, otherwise they’re still fumbling with their real book or iPad when we’re already a chorus through Green Dolphin St. I’m not saying you have to know every tune, but bog standards like Stella, All the Things, Fly me to the moon, What is this thing, etc should be able to be played from memory, is that too much to ask?

I don’t want to be stuck playing Real book changes, people that know the tunes can pickup on any substitutions I’m doing (I will mention them if I remember), and that’s not going to happen if they’re concentrating on reading changes from a book.

A big part of the problem is that there are far fewer gigs around. Helps to be playing this stuff a lot, (if that’s what you want to do). Imo, to be able to play jazz, you have to play jazz, obviously you need your theory, etc, and theory is fine, in theory;)

I totally get it, and I don't feel comfortable playing with real jazz cats. That hasn't stopped me from getting plenty of Real Book gigs with other musicians who essentially play out of the book. FYI we do alter some of the changes and I have actually had soloist get on me because I throw a tritone sub or add a properly altered none chord tone here or there, because it makes them have to work harder.

I have had a few gigs with players who have the tunes memorized. This is under the context of me doing them a favor when their normal bass player is not available. I am always very transparent with my limitations and they assure me it will not be a problem, but somehow on the gig, it frequently is. It always slays me how they have to wait till the last second during their talk over to say what the next tune is. There have been gigs, where I almost walked off the bandstand because the songs are announced at the last second and then immediately counted off. I may seem like a hack to you, but that does not mean I like to embarrass myself. I slays me how impatient and unkind people can be when you are doing your best to help them out of a bind.

Now if I were immersed in a bit larger and more authentic jazz scene, then maybe things would be different. But like I said previously, most of the time when I played combo music, it was for background purposes and I had a lot of other musical priorities and plenty of other duties competing for my time. My talent is very generalized, so I can play jazz, but I am far from a jazz specialist.

Playing out of the Real Book was easy and automatic. It's something I typically did at the end of the day after I had rehearsed 5-6 hours in concert band, big band, or a rock band...the rest of the musicians would go home and the rhythm section would go play cocktail hour and/or dinner music.

I halfway suspect that I lack a certain aspect of aptitude related to memory, but it could be that I was never presented with the proper environment and mentoring. I am largely self taught when it comes to jazz, and I picked up the skills I needed to succeed in my job, but not to do what you think I should be able to do.

What I have noticed is I tend to improve when I am surrounded by people who are better than I. Towards the end of my playing career, I was nailing my parts and lot's of others were not. Basically at some point either the musical standards declined, or I improved to the point that I was well above average. Either way, the consequence was that I started getting frustrated and loosing interest.

Maybe things would have been different and I would have continued to grow if I were surrounded by a bunch of hot jazz musicians who could hand me my @$$. But that didn't happen, so I chose to become an audio tech instead.

I totally understand that you would not like to play with someone like me. But if you ever need to ask a hack to do you a favor, consider showing them a bit of grace and making an effort to give them the time to turn the page if that is what they need to do a good job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Ambler
Anyway, to the point of "modern jazz":

A brief list of the styles in twentieth-century African-American improvised music would look something like this below. The dates are roughly when there was big innovation happening in that style. For almost all the styles, there are people still working in that style today:

Pre-Jazz/ragtime 1880? - 1910?
Early jazz/New Orleans/Dixieland/trad 1900? - 1930 (putting Bix's death as kind of the end)
Swing 1927? - 1940
Big band swing/pop 1935? - 1950

--everything in the next group has been called "modern jazz" at one time or another --

Bebop 1940-1950
Post-bop/hard bop/funk 1950-1960
Free jazz 1958? - 1975
West coast/cool school (including the bossa nova fad maybe?) 1950? - 1965

-- and then we move into rock and roll --

Proto-rock/pre-rock/jump & blues (Louis Jordan, Cab Calloway, and so on) 1945? - 1957?
Early rock (Little Richard, Fats Domino, Elvis, etc.) 1953? - 1960
Rhythm and blues/soul 1955? - 1975
Jazz/rock fusion 1965? - 1985
Hip-hop/jazz fusion 1980? - ??

I'm sure there are some things I"ve left out. But my point is that "modern jazz" can include a lot of things. If you go to the average "jazz" jam session, or most concerts, or most club dates, what you are likely to hear (with some exceptions) is a bunch of guys playing the repertoire of the bebop, hard bop, funk, and sometimes the "west coast/cool/bossa" periods, or new compositions written to sound pretty much exactly like older tunes of those styles. So "jazz" as it's most commonly experienced if you don't seriously seek out different venues, nowadays consists of material and performance practice from 1940-1965 roughly, or from 80 to 55 years ago. No wonder there's a sameness to it all, especially since more and more young players come out of the pre-fab jazz factories like Berklee and NT State where they teach them - big surprise! - mostly the repertoire and performance practice of 1940-1960.

Somebody once wrote "Jazz is the sound of surprise" and going to a bar to hear a quintet of two horns, bass drums and piano play head-solos-head on a string of tunes either introduced between 1940-1960, or newly written to sound like they date from 1940-1960, isn't a recipe for being surprised.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wasnex and eJake
Yes. Didn’t Steve Swallow have a big hand in putting together the Real Book, for Berkeley?
It was originally intended as a reference book for Students, and funnily enough, has quite a few Steve Swallow tunes in it. Falling Grace is one of my all time favourite songs, played by Bill and Eddie on the duo album, ‘Intuition’. ‘Intuition’ is essential listening, imo, probably the one album I would take to a desert island.

Yeah, I swear I've never heard anyone actually play some of those oddball tunes, like "Como en Vietnam".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Ambler
‘Fun’ is a way too glib term to express the emotional and intellectual experience of playing music. It can be much better than ‘fun’.
It is interesting at this point to think about what 'entertainment' really means. I am not an english speaking native, so I'll switch briefly to french, fo which a translation of 'to entertain' is 'divertir' : to divert (pretty simple to translate). The original meaning is 'to divert someone from his concerns'. Nowadays, 'divertir' is usually taken as 'amusing' : we get to the concept of 'having fun'. Getting back to english 'to entertain' comes from 'to hold', 'to keep someone in a certain frame of mind'. In english too the direct correspondance between 'entertaining' and 'amusing' is not straightforward.

The point is that we like/need to be diverted from our everyday concerns. Fun is the easiest way, first because it can take place anytime (a joke in a conversation for example) and also it doesn't take much effort to get into a ´fun’ state of mind. But there are other form of emotions that 'entertain', like seing a drama at the movies, etc.

Concerning music, not all music is 'Fun'. Blues, for example hardly comes in the 'Fun' category (although some blues songs can be fun). Jazz can be fun too ('Salt Peanuts' is presented as a silly song). But Strange Fruits is deicdedly not funny. Yet all are entertaining... in different ways then being funny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quinn Roberts
Jazz is Jazz!

Not pop!

Wise
Ok.
Maybe it is.
Maybe.
But only after you've done all the work to get there.

Some music forms start out with full intent to be fun.
And for all listening to have fun.
Rock.Punk.Dance music.

But that is not the intent if most Jazz musicians.
No one goes to Julliard or Berkley Music Academy with the primary intent of having fun.
The stage presence of jazz musicians in general is not one that says "Let's all get goofy and have a party"

Let us not forget, original recordings aside, a good majority of these early jazzers catalogues consisted of pop music from their day and age. They took familiar melodies and harmonies, ones loved by everyone, and used them as a musical vehicle to get the crowd engaged. Once they did that, they were free to solo over the rhythm/changes til the crowd started to wane; then it was on to the next tune. "Summertime sound good you guys?"
 
It is interesting at this point to think about what 'entertainment' really means. I am not an english speaking native, so I'll switch briefly to french, fo which a translation of 'to entertain' is 'divertir' : to divert (pretty simple to translate). The original meaning is 'to divert someone from his concerns'. Nowadays, 'divertir' is usually taken as 'amusing' : we get to the concept of 'having fun'. Getting back to english 'to entertain' comes from 'to hold', 'to keep someone in a certain frame of mind'. In english too the direct correspondance between 'entertaining' and 'amusing' is not straightforward.

The point is that we like/need to be diverted from our everyday concerns. Fun is the easiest way, first because it can take place anytime (a joke in a conversation for example) and also it doesn't take much effort to get into a ´fun’ state of mind. But there are other form of emotions that 'entertain', like seing a drama at the movies, etc.

Concerning music, not all music is 'Fun'. Blues, for example hardly comes in the 'Fun' category (although some blues songs can be fun). Jazz can be fun too ('Salt Peanuts' is presented as a silly song). But Strange Fruits is deicdedly not funny. Yet all are entertaining... in different ways then being funny.

One song I refuse to play: The Entertainer.

If it's my gig, obviously I would like people to like what I do, but I play for myself and the other musicians.
 
Doesn't really matter to me if you have a degree from Berkley or Julliard, what matters is that what you play is interesting and soulful and is a real self expression in whatever musical landscape you prefer to explore. Really that's all we are is explorers not unlike the type that dared to cross the oceans or wander new lands just to see what was out there, we just do it in a musical landscape.

........or we just do covers to have fun and make a couple bucks, and that's OK too


What did John Lennon say about modern jazz.....oh yeah, they just play it to darn fast
That was Chuck Berry; Lennon was just reiterating.