• 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.

Double Bass The New Standard

#121
damonsmith said:
Part of my argument is that there are TONS of great jazz tunes from every era - even now, we are NOT hurting for music to play - we can even (obviously) improvise freely. The great compositions now are not written by Nirvana and Radiohead but by David Holland, Anthony Braxton, Kenny Wheeler, etc., etc.
Click to expand...

I think that's a very narrow point of view. I'd say both jazz musicians and pop/rock musicians are writing great compositions. It doesn't need to be either or.

What is inarguable is that pop/rock musicians are writing music that is much more culturally relevant. This will lead to jazz musicians covering these tunes for a couple reasons. One, and most obvious, is that a cover of a popular song (or a song by a popular artist) draws in listeners you may not get otherwise. Two, and more often overlooked, is that jazz musicians don't exist in a vacuum. If an artist is popular or a song is culturally relevant then it is going to influence artists from other genres. This can lead to some inspired music.

Finally, I look at a lot of the cross-genre covers that jazz musicians have been doing as a great way to hook non-jazz listeners on jazz music. Someone might buy a The Bad Plus record for a cover song they like, and if they like the record they'll dig deeper and be exposed to Bill McHenry, Tootie Heath, etc. A Radiohead fan who bought Christian Scott's last record because there was a Thom Yorke cover on it could very quickly find themselves digging through Donald Harrison's catalog.
 
#122
beggar98 said:
What is inarguable is that pop/rock musicians are writing music that is much more culturally relevant.
Click to expand...

I find all of it extremely devoid of "culture", myself. There are lots of arguments for or against it, but I have yet to hear a single one of these tunes "jazzed up" that didn't come off pandering, silly or ironic.

I am all for the idea that anything can be made into art, but no one has said what about any of these tunes makes them interesting material to improvise on other than (imagine the dumbest voice possible) "I really like that song!!!" (squealing like a pre-teen) or "I grew up with that music".

While it is well known Tony Bourdain hates Mcnuggets I am sure after a night of drinking he can get an ejoyable meal from the McDonalds menu, but that is NOT going to become content for "No Reservations".

Engaging in this activity is at best going to sound unoriginal (like you are just ripping off Mehldau, TBP or the Thing) at worst trite.
The best advice for younger players is study the tradition and play your own music and your colleagues music, trust me: very few of those playing "new standards" now are going to be proud of it in ten years.
 
#123
Dave Douglas's album The Infinite came out in 2002. That's almost 10 years. I think his music speaks for itself. He continues to play songs by modern songwriters like Rufus Wainwright.

Mehldau's recording of "Exit Music for a Film" on Art of the Trio 4 is still a favorite of mine. I love the changes and the melody. I didn't know Radiohead's version or any of their music before listening to his version. Actually I'd heard their first album and I thought it sucked. I bought Art of the Trio vol 4 because of a recommendation from a piano player friend and because it had "All the things you are" on it. I like his version of "River Man" a lot as well, which led me back to Nick Drake's original version, which is really great. So the pop covers can lead listeners into new music in both directions.

As a player, I don't really do much playing of "new standard" material. I'm mostly a sideman, or playing at jam sessions, so the songs are old songs that everyone knows, or whatever the bandleader wants to play. Also, I love improvising on those songs. I'm not opposed to playing Radiohead or Wayne Shorter, but I love playing Cole Porter, Gershwin, Kern, Rogers, etc.

If I were to look for "new standard" material, I'd start with Elliott Smith, because his music depends more on melody, chords and songwriting than on production or orchestration.
 
#124
beggar98 said:
What is inarguable is that pop/rock musicians are writing music that is much more culturally relevant.
Click to expand...
I've been hearing this for decades.
What this has to do with the essence of playing jazz is beyond me. If Mehldau is performing tunes by Radiohead, even if he genuinely likes the tune, I don't see it as him wanting to be 'culturally relevant'. I'm reminded of Lenny Tristano doing a suite of three distinct songs, each of which was really a version of "Melancholy Baby". It was an academic exercise. I also remember Sonny Rollins' "Way Out West" album, which included "I'm an Old Cowhand" and "Wagon Wheels". A combination of virtuosity and having himself a horse laugh.
Then again, I don't own a Groove Regulator, either.
beggar98 said:
This will lead to jazz musicians covering these tunes for a couple reasons. One, and most obvious, is that a cover of a popular song (or a song by a popular artist) draws in listeners you may not get otherwise.
Click to expand...
My experience is contrary. I've only seen people sneer because we didn't sound like the original record.
 
#126
Don Higdon said:
I've been hearing this for decades.
What this has to do with the essence of playing jazz is beyond me. If Mehldau is performing tunes by Radiohead, even if he genuinely likes the tune, I don't see it as him wanting to be 'culturally relevant'. I'm reminded of Lenny Tristano doing a suite of three distinct songs, each of which was really a version of "Melancholy Baby". It was an academic exercise. I also remember Sonny Rollins' "Way Out West" album, which included "I'm an Old Cowhand" and "Wagon Wheels". A combination of virtuosity and having himself a horse laugh.
Then again, I don't own a Groove Regulator, either.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that a jazz artist will cover a pop/rock tune in an attempt to be culturally relevant, but that because pop/rock tunes are more culturally relevant (read: popular) then a jazz artist who is at all plugged in to what is going on around them will be influenced by and inspired to re-interpret these pieces. In order for jazz to be a living, relevant art form it needs to constantly incorporate new ideas, and playing songs from modern popular music is a great way to do that.

If you've tried to re-interpret pop tunes and received a bad response because it didn't sound enough like the original, I'm thinking the problem is with you, not the material. Maybe you should get a Groove Regulator...
 
#127
I don't think that we can equate temporal popularity with cultural relevance.

That said, when I've played with folks doing topical pop tunes in some sort of jazz style (?), it was because the band/leader liked the notes, spaces, rhythms, and changes.

The times they/we did it to be cute and ironic, that faded as soon as we finished the head. Once the solos happened, it became irrelevant.

And, yes, frankly, some audience members can seem a bit disappointed that we didn't "cover" the tune "better," which always meant, sounding exactly like the record. I do think that this had more to do with the audience than with the players, or their groove modulators. Or sometimes some audience members just seem confused.

People often listen to jazz for differing reasons than they listen to pop music, as far as I can tell. Many folks who have an emotional expectation from hearing a familiar tune on the radio (for the fortieth time) can be like addicts when they get gypped for their "fix;" they want that predictable feeling, when they want it.

People listen to jazz hoping and expecting to hear something new and unusual, yet still somewhat accessible. People listen to pop music wanting to hear something very predictable.
 
#128
beggar98 said:
I'm not saying that a jazz artist will cover a pop/rock tune in an attempt to be culturally relevant, but that because pop/rock tunes are more culturally relevant (read: popular) ...
Click to expand...

Unless you are talking about walmart/maintstream tv culture it doesn't make any sense. If you are interested in that demographic jazz is not an efficient format.
Chances are high that you will alienate more serious jazz players and listeners than you might convert.

People like to talk about the connection between jazz and pop but it hasn't really been there for 50 years.
From at least my generation forward and probably before, jazz had served as a refuge from pop for many players and listeners.
That is probably the single biggest reason the "new standard" trend is met with hostility. Hopefully, it will pass along with skinny jeans and fixed gear bikes!
 
#131
Eric Swanson said:
I don't think that we can equate temporal popularity with cultural relevance.

That said, when I've played with folks doing topical pop tunes in some sort of jazz style (?), it was because the band/leader liked the notes, spaces, rhythms, and changes.

The times they/we did it to be cute and ironic, that faded as soon as we finished the head. Once the solos happened, it became irrelevant.

And, yes, frankly, some audience members can seem a bit disappointed that we didn't "cover" the tune "better," which always meant, sounding exactly like the record. I do think that this had more to do with the audience than with the players, or their groove modulators. Or sometimes some audience members just seem confused.

People often listen to jazz for differing reasons than they listen to pop music, as far as I can tell. Many folks who have an emotional expectation from hearing a familiar tune on the radio (for the fortieth time) can be like addicts when they get gypped for their "fix;" they want that predictable feeling, when they want it.

People listen to jazz hoping and expecting to hear something new and unusual, yet still somewhat accessible. People listen to pop music wanting to hear something very predictable.
Click to expand...

Good points. I also think its important to recognize that artists like Mehldau and The Bad Plus are operating at a different level as far as the audiences they play to. This is not to say they are any better musicians than anyone on this board (though they are certainly better than me), just that when an artist is well-known I think they are given more leeway to be "artistic", whereas most unknown musicians are expected to be entertainers more than artists. Again, this falls on the audience more than the musician.
 
#132
damonsmith said:
Unless you are talking about walmart/maintstream tv culture it doesn't make any sense. If you are interested in that demographic jazz is not an efficient format.
Chances are high that you will alienate more serious jazz players and listeners than you might convert.

People like to talk about the connection between jazz and pop but it hasn't really been there for 50 years.
From at least my generation forward and probably before, jazz had served as a refuge from pop for many players and listeners.
That is probably the single biggest reason the "new standard" trend is met with hostility. Hopefully, it will pass along with skinny jeans and fixed gear bikes!
Click to expand...

But the "new standard" trend is nothing new, just the name is. Jaco recorded a Beatles cover in the 1980s. Freddie Hubbard was covering Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder in the 1970s, Grant Green did a Beatles tune in the '60s. Wes Montgomery did a record where he covered the Beatles and Frank Sinatra. Count Basie did an entire album of Beatles tunes in 1966, and George Benson recorded a cover of the Beatles album Abbey Road in 1970. I'd say that what the Beatles were then, Radiohead appears to be now (as far as songs that work well as jazz covers, not popularity or necessarily artistic merit). Invalid Link Removed has a pretty good list of jazz artists covering rock.
 
#133
damonsmith said:
Chances are high that you will alienate more serious jazz players and listeners than you might convert.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing, though: how do you define "serious?"

For example, I used to have pretty much the same opinion on this topic as you do, Damon, and I still think that 98% of the attempts at this actually suck, to put it bluntly.

But I've heard it done well. And I liked the results.

So I re-examined why I felt the way I did, and couldn't come up with any justifiable reason for just dismissing any and all arrangements of tunes that weren't "serious" or "proper" or whatever: there was no way to define it to my satisfaction. "Not old" or "not by properly anointed jazz composer" didn't cut it, and I realized I was just holding on to unjustifiable dogma.

So, while—in practice—I still agree with you pretty much across the board, I can no longer say, "this is and always will be bad thing" because I've heard it work.

Splitting hairs? Maybe, but sometimes open minds need to split hairs.
 
#134
transition said:
For example, I used to have pretty much the same opinion on this topic as you do, Damon, and I still think that 98% of the attempts at this actually suck, to put it bluntly.

But I've heard it done well. And I liked the results.
Click to expand...

98% - success in hearing what not to do
2% - success in hearing what to do.

That's a much better ratio than Thomas Edison had with his light bulb!
 
#135
transition said:
Here's the thing, though: how do you define "serious?"

For example, I used to have pretty much the same opinion on this topic as you do, Damon, and I still think that 98% of the attempts at this actually suck, to put it bluntly.

But I've heard it done well. And I liked the results.

So I re-examined why I felt the way I did, and couldn't come up with any justifiable reason for just dismissing any and all arrangements of tunes that weren't "serious" or "proper" or whatever: there was no way to define it to my satisfaction. "Not old" or "not by properly anointed jazz composer" didn't cut it, and I realized I was just holding on to unjustifiable dogma.

So, while—in practice—I still agree with you pretty much across the board, I can no longer say, "this is and always will be bad thing" because I've heard it work.

Splitting hairs? Maybe, but sometimes open minds need to split hairs.
Click to expand...

The whole movement to categorize what is and is not acceptable jazz repertoire is foolish. Like Duke said: "If it sounds good, it is good."
 
#138
damonsmith said:
Agreed. I understand we are all coming it from different places, but I have yet to hear any of it sound good.

If I put Mehldau's trio or the Bad plus in a playlist with Money Jungle, Cecil Taylor's feel trio and any Evans trio, I know which one just won't hold up to my ear!
Click to expand...

Is that just personal preference? I'm not a big Mehldau fan (I love The Bad Plus), but is it just their pop/rock covers you don't like or is it their originals as well? Also, not for nothing, but if the Money Jungle trio, Cecil Taylor and Bill Evans are your standards I imagine you're disappointed by much more music than you're impressed by.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back