Double Bass Why isn't Jazz that popular? (DB forum thread)

[fingerbun]

Bingo. Done.
Music theory is not sexy. Kinda of like the dudes who re-enact medevil battles with plastic swords and the whole get-up at the park. Not a good look if you actually are attempting to have intercourse..with a woman I mean.

I have a good friend whose day job is leading edge medical research. His two hobbies are jazz guitar and medieval battle reenactments.

I must email him a link to this thread

Edit : but he does have kids, indicating at least some success in those other matters.

 

[fingerbun]

Sorry the time thing I meant time practicing, also 7 hours a day everyday is quite a bit especially for the double bass since its more physical of an instrument than most (except for trumpet, most trumpet players I know max out at about 4 before their lips can't take it).
Again lets just agree to disagree

Just a suggestion. Practice on your instrument shouldn't be all you count in your work time. Studying theory, writing, recording, mixing, listening to other great players and transcribing all can develop your craft.

 

[fingerbun]

But isn't that the goal of pop music, to sell as many CDs/mp3s as possible? Maybe that pursuit is the problem I have with it. I'm more tolerant of bad jazz because the intention was to create something meaningful, bad pop is just a failed business proposal.

I could play you a lot of 78rpm discs from my Dad's collection that would challenge that distinction. Accountants can ruin any form of music.

 

[Marial]

But isn't that the goal of pop music, to sell as many CDs/mp3s as possible? Maybe that pursuit is the problem I have with it. I'm more tolerant of bad jazz because the intention was to create something meaningful, bad pop is just a failed business proposal.

Perhaps, perhaps not. There are certainly groups out there that are nothing more than a musical product, Milli Vanilli being the classic example. That said, bad music is bad music and motivations don't really play into it for me, personally. I actually don't see anything inherently wrong commercial music. It is what it is. I mean, Motown, Hitsville USA, was all about hits hits hits hits hits. It was a commercial venture. Same with Stax. Now, I happen to like that music, and some of it had real social resonance and substance, but Barry Gordy and the owners of Stax were into making money before anything else.

 

[Marial]

I have a good friend whose day job is leading edge medical research. His two hobbies are jazz guitar and medieval battle reenactments.

I must email him a link to this thread

Edit : but he does have kids, indicating at least some success in those other matters.

Hey, there are some hot RenFest ladies out there.

 

[SeaBassTheFish]

One of the nice things about pop music is that 'the good bit' is repeated, not played once and then put up against the wall and shot.

Wow, we're exact opposites. When the head is over, that's when my ears perk up. As the head begins again, I assume a more relaxed listening. Just proves how differently two people can hear the same thing.

 

[dvh]

Bingo. Done.
Music theory is not sexy. Kinda of like the dudes who re-enact medevil battles with plastic swords and the whole get-up at the park. Not a good look if you actually are attempting to have intercourse..with a woman I mean.

Well, one's member shouldn't have to do all the thinking....

 

[SteveC]

Music theory is not sexy. Kinda of like the dudes who re-enact medevil battles with plastic swords and the whole get-up at the park. Not a good look if you actually are attempting to have intercourse..with a woman I mean.

I don't know about battle re-enactments, but we have a number of "chicks" who "follow" us. A few of them are quite good looking.

 

[fingerbun]

Here's a followon question where I think there are no right or wrong answers, it's just an extension of the topic, and might shed light on why people see things as they do.

Are the best jazz players (a) people who invent genuinely new sonic ideas or (b) people who come up with really amazing melodies on their instrument, even though it might be really channelling the style of others or (c) people who demonstrate amazing technical prowess on their instrument?

What do you value and why? For me (a) and (b) are more interesting than (c) provided (a) is harmonically tasteful.

 

[HunterBrodt]

Is it to much to ask for all three?

 

[Huy Nguyen]

I was gonna say the same. The best players switch seamlessly between a and b from moment to moment, but c is always a constant. C is meaningless without a and b.

Technical prowess could also mean playing a single note with amazing time/feel/tone. Good tone is a technical aspect. But to further the discussion, a, b, and c are just byproducts of good music. Good music is nothing without intent.

Clarity of intent and clarity of message, IMO, are the ultimate goals. It's what separates the good players from the bad. Bad players noodle endlessly with no intent. Good players are trying to deliver some sort of message. Little or lots of notes plus big intent makes for great music. Little or lots of notes with zero intent is aimless and wandering. I think that applies for all styles.

IMO, it's why most people do a terrible job at free jazz and Ornette is the effing master.

 

[beggar98]

Here's a followon question where I think there are no right or wrong answers, it's just an extension of the topic, and might shed light on why people see things as they do.

Are the best jazz players (a) people who invent genuinely new sonic ideas or (b) people who come up with really amazing melodies on their instrument, even though it might be really channelling the style of others or (c) people who demonstrate amazing technical prowess on their instrument?

What do you value and why? For me (a) and (b) are more interesting than (c) provided (a) is harmonically tasteful.

This is a good question. I think for me its a balancing act, with all three being needed but hopefully none over-shadowing the other. I get bored if someone is just showing off their technical ability without saying anything new or beautiful, but I also get bored if someone is playing a beautiful line that any amateur could play.

At times I think this is the curse of being a musician. Sometimes knowing what is behind the curtain makes it harder to appreciate something simple.

 

[transition]

...but I also get bored if someone is playing a beautiful line that any amateur could play.

At times I think this is the curse of being a musician. Sometimes knowing what is behind the curtain makes it harder to appreciate something simple.

I couldn't disagree with this more.

IMO, there's a world of difference between creating music that happens to be simple, and being able to read the notation of such music off a page.

As mentioned earlier, it often takes a master to create something simple and beautiful. You virtually never hear "any amateur" doing it. Simple, sure, but generally not simple AND beautiful. That takes a master, and a lot of guts.

Playing simply means putting it all on the line; there's nothing to hide behind. Your time, your tone, your intonation, your phrasing: it's all laid bare.

Quality "simple" is very, very hard.

 

[topo morto]

Wow, we're exact opposites. When the head is over, that's when my ears perk up. As the head begins again, I assume a more relaxed listening. Just proves how differently two people can hear the same thing.

Yep, interesting!

 

[beggar98]

I couldn't disagree with this more.

IMO, there's a world of difference between creating music that happens to be simple, and being able to read the notation of such music off a page.

As mentioned earlier, it often takes a master to create something simple and beautiful. You virtually never hear "any amateur" doing it. Simple, sure, but generally not simple AND beautiful. That takes a master, and a lot of guts.

Playing simply means putting it all on the line; there's nothing to hide behind. Your time, your tone, your intonation, your phrasing: it's all laid bare.

Quality "simple" is very, very hard.

But time, tone, intonation and phrasing are basic skills. Regardless of the complexity of a given piece, these factors need to be present for a performance to be any good.

The idea that you are more "laid bare" when playing something simple is wrong. You're laid bare whenever you perform anything, with all the successes and failures there for everyone to hear.

 

[transition]

So "any amateur" could easily play as well as Miles on "So What"?

 

[fingerbun]

But time, tone, intonation and phrasing are basic skills. Regardless of the complexity of a given piece, these factors need to be present for a performance to be any good.

There's a lot taken for granted in that stuff. Try something as simple as writing a swing feel so that a classical player can nail it from the dots. And that sort of stuff cuts all ways.....for example I bow a baroque piece differently from a romantic or 20C but it's not written down anywhere, I know to do it.

The idea that you are more "laid bare" when playing something simple is wrong. You're laid bare whenever you perform anything, with all the successes and failures there for everyone to hear.

Maybe in that situation some guys find security in lots of notes.

At the moment I am immersing myself in a lot of blues, and it's really interesting to contrast guitarists who are flash, brash and noisy with someone who can make the guitar cry.

Here's a sort-of-related tidbit that always fascinates me:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[beggar98]

So "any amateur" could easily play as well as Miles on "So What"?

Are you talking about the head, where the horns play the two note phrases punctuating the bass line? Yes, I would say a relative amateur should be able to play that.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Are you talking about the head, where the horns play the two note phrases punctuating the bass line? Yes, I would say a relative amateur should be able to play that.

I guess it's safe to say that "Nuance" is not your middle name.

Lemme guess; Is it, "Troll?"

 

[beggar98]

There's a lot taken for granted in that stuff. Try something as simple as writing a swing feel so that a classical player can nail it from the dots. And that sort of stuff cuts all ways.....for example I bow a baroque piece differently from a romantic or 20C but it's not written down anywhere, I know to do it.

Sure, lots of simple things are always being taken for granted- but those simple things, the subtle nuances are just as important in a complex piece as they are in a simple piece.

Maybe in that situation some guys find security in lots of notes.

At the moment I am immersing myself in a lot of blues, and it's really interesting to contrast guitarists who are flash, brash and noisy with someone who can make the guitar cry.

Here's a sort-of-related tidbit that always fascinates me:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

I agree that some players will use flash to cover a lack of substance, just as some players will use simplicity as an excuse for being incapable of playing fast. Thinking of blues guitarists, consider Eric Johnson, BB King and SRV. Eric Johnson has near flawless technique, but it always sounds kind of soulless to me. BB King is all soul, but his playing is boring- yeah, BB, keep bending that note for a few more bars. SRV is the perfect marriage of the two- amazing technique and soul for days. Some people will say Johnson is superior because his technique is so flawless, some people say BB is the greatest ever because he keeps it simple, but in my mind SRV is the best of both worlds and a much more compelling musician.