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

[RBrownBass]

I think Treyser's comments were interesting and he is clearly a very accomplished musician and bass player and I give due respect.

Don't know him, but I have no doubt of his talent and his resume; my post wasn't an insult.

My point is that good jazz, like good "classical" music, does not need amplification. Drums (percussion), double bass (strings), and piano (both) and vocals (lets not go there) is a form of music that played well can be perfect in its own genre.

Well, it might need amplification if the venue and/or audience is large enough. Ideally it ought not.

Then electric amplification of instruments came along, for better or worse.

I think it has as much to do with the huge number of DIY musicians who came along because of a marketflood of solidbody guitars and basses. The two are linked, sure.

 

[Epidrake]

I heard Jeff Berlin say that playing Jazz will make you a better player in general, even if you are a rock bassist. He's probably right.

For me, playing Jazz is much more fun than listening to it. Maybe that's why it's not more popular. Certainly the demise of music education in the US has not helped.

 

[topo morto]

I disagree strongly. If money is the only gauge of professionalism, then the bass player from Rancid is as much or more of a pro than Christian McBride. Success and professionalism are two very different things.

How much money you make isn't a gauge of professionalism, no. But having professionalism is a different thing to being a professional - which, in itself, can mean different things depending on what field of activity you are talking about. English is funny that way.

And what do you know about the bass player from Rancid (apparently, one Matt Freeman) that makes you doubt his professionalism?

 

[fingerbun]

McCartney is somewhat irrelevant in this conversation when being compared to Treyser (no offense to Treyser). If we were comparing McCartney to, say, Ron Carter and asked who is more of a pro, I'd say Carter all day long. My reasoning is that I'm pretty sure Carter could hop on stage with any Beatles cover band and make his way through the songs, maybe even play them very well. Could Macca jump up with a jazz combo and walk over rhythm changes at 240bpm?

In my mind, the single greatest hallmark of a PRO musician is facility in many styles. The climate is such that a pro player needs to be able to accept gigs in rock, funk, soul, jazz, latin, etc. I think jazz players, just by the knowledge required to play that style well, are best suited to jump in to other styles with little/no rehearsal. If I was a band leader in a Top 40 cover band and my regular guitarist couldn't make the gig, I could feel comfortable hiring an accomplished rock player just as well as an accomplished jazz player. If I were leading a jazz group in the same situation, I could not hire the rock player.

Hi, the comment about professionalism was a reply to Timobee4 who said all styles other than jazz are for amateurs.

McCartney vs Carter....don't care. Both amazingly talented and both have my deep respect. I suspect your point about Carter's superior technique is true, but I also suspect McCartney has the better track record in terms of innovation. But maybe both of them would surprise me.

 

[fingerbun]

I think it has as much to do with the huge number of DIY musicians who came along because of a marketflood of solidbody guitars and basses. The two are linked, sure.

I have no issue with DIY. I think creating music should be something you DO, at least as much as something you WATCH.

If one person does music by a serious study of jazz improvisation, and another plays bodhran or tin whistle at Irish sessions or singalong songs in a ukulele group, the end result is happiness.

I refuse to deny others that happiness because they are not at my level, just as I refuse to deny myself that happiness because there are other players who could break half their fingers off and still wipe the floor with me.

Music, in many forms, is one of the things that makes life worth living.

And by the way, some of those DIY guys end up pretty good. We all started out unable to play. We all went through being mediocre.

 

[timobee4]

Hi, the comment about professionalism was a reply to Timobee4 who said all styles other than jazz are for amateurs.

McCartney vs Carter....don't care.

I should have been careful with what I wrote! Didn't suspect that someone will split hair on it so I stand corrected, of course there are hundreds of pros mostly from jazz background in the music industry doing well like playing whatever they throw at him like Will Lee and such, but comparing McCarney to Carter is exactly like comparing Ringo Starr to Tony Williams or Dannie Richmond

I guess you have to be a jazz cat to understand the benefits, I come from classical to jazz and believe me there is no superiority complex just a simple acknowledgment that people like McCartney or Entwistle although made history because of their uniqueness, no bass dept. at any art college will dissect to try understand the logic and the meaning behind their bass lines and choice of substitutions like they will in do to Ron Carters lines even in 1000 years! Ron is one of the greatest educator with more innovations and bass lines under his toenails than Paul pants down! Such feeble argument.

 

[RBrownBass]

I have no issue with DIY.

Nor do I, really. In a way, I think it's cool that anyone can pick up a Precision bass and be proficient enough in a few hours or weeks to post their opinions about music on message boards. Solid body string instruments (for the most part) are a musical world of their own, one of tablature and picks and concerns about paint jobs and inlays and the right uniform and the right hair... I've played my part in that as a younger man, save the picks and tab (I use fingerstyle and am musically literate).

I was replying to Mokebass' comment about amplification by adding that (once Leo Fender and others got the ball rolling) the market was flooded with inexpensive instruments that don't require the owner to undergo any formal training before someone out there is entertained by their playing. Some of that music makes people --including me-- want to stand up and wiggle, so there must be some merit to the whole process. The amps were just a way to get sound out of the solidbody guitar.

I think creating music should be something you DO at least as much as something you WATCH.

Even before I started this bass journey, I never watched music being created. I've heard it created, tho.

But what do you mean here? Surely you're not advocating that every Joe with a whim start dividing their listening time between listing to recordings and "creating music". The minute we start telling everyone that we all can contribute to the making of great music, the listeners who'd benefit most from hearing people who CAN make such a contribution are in their basement instead of out supporting the existence of great music Some of them need to listen and not play. Who's to judge that? Dunno, but it's true.

Kinda reminds me of conversation I once had with a teaching colleague and soccer fiend (plays rec league soccer and is a great disc golfer) who, when asked why Atlanta was such a poor sports town, relied, "It's not!!! It's a fantastic sports town!!! There are leagues for any sport you'd want to participate in. Any age group... any sport from fencing to disc gol- oh, you mean a sports spectator town.." the corners of his mouth turned down when he said the last part. I was slack-jawed with amazement at his comments. He actually thought his old, fat, slow recreational shinkicking deserves to be considered part of ATL's sports culture.

 

[fingerbun]

I should have been careful with what I wrote! Didn't suspect that someone will split hair on it so I stand corrected, of course there are hundreds of pros mostly from jazz background in the music industry doing well like playing whatever they throw at him like Will Lee and such, but comparing McCarney to Carter is exactly like comparing Ringo Starr to Tony Williams or Dannie Richmond

I guess you have to be a jazz cat to understand the benefits, I come from classical to jazz and believe me there is no superiority complex just a simple acknowledgment that people like McCartney or Entwistle although made history because of their uniqueness, no bass dept. at any art college will dissects to try understand the logic and the meaning behind his bass lines and choice of substitutions like they will in do to Ron Carters lines even in 1000 years! Ron is one of the greatest educator with more innovations and bass lines under his toenails than Paul pants down! Such feeble argument.

Sorry to split hairs and differentiate between you being right vs wrong. You know, I am forming the opinion that you are just a real one eyed double bass snob. I will credit you that at least you admit it on your profile.

I am glad you are passionate about what you do. Hope your music goes well for you.

Now off you go....you need to practice the complex bits in "Darktown Strutters Ball" a bit more. That run up from the IV in the last 8 bars is soooooo tricky and unique

 

[RBrownBass]

I should have been careful with what I wrote! Didn't suspect that someone will split hair on it so I stand corrected, of course there are hundreds of pros mostly from jazz background in the music industry doing well like playing whatever they throw at him like Will Lee and such, but comparing McCarney to Carter is exactly like comparing Ringo Starr to Tony Williams or Dannie Richmond

I guess you have to be a jazz cat to understand the benefits, I come from classical to jazz and believe me there is no superiority complex just a simple acknowledgment that people like McCartney or Entwistle although made history because of their uniqueness, no bass dept. at any art college will dissect to try understand the logic and the meaning behind their bass lines and choice of substitutions like they will in do to Ron Carters lines even in 1000 years! Ron is one of the greatest educator with more innovations and bass lines under his toenails than Paul pants down! Such feeble argument.

This was never going to go over well. Opponents of jazz don't want to dissect anything, read anything, understand anything.

They want to wiggle.

 

[topo morto]

just a simple acknowledgment that people like McCartney or Entwistle although made history because of their uniqueness, no bass dept. at any art college will dissect to try understand the logic and the meaning behind their bass lines and choice of substitutions.

No, they won't look at Entwistle's 'choice of substitutions'. But they may tallk about his "typewriter" technique, his experiments with amplification, and his lead-like timbre and playing style.

 

[fingerbun]

Nor do I, really. In a way, I think it's cool that anyone can pick up a Precision bass and be proficient enough in a few hours or weeks to post their opinions about music on message boards. Solid body string instruments (for the most part) are a musical world of their own, one of tablature and picks and concerns about paint jobs and inlays and the right uniform and the right hair... I've played my part in that as a younger man, save the picks and tab (I use fingerstyle and am musically literate).

I was replying to Mokebass' comment about amplification by adding that (once Leo Fender and others got the ball rolling) the market was flooded with inexpensive instruments that don't require the owner to undergo any formal training before someone out there is entertained by their playing. Some of that music makes people --including me-- want to stand up and wiggle, so there must be some merit to the whole process. The amps were just a way to get sound out of the solidbody guitar.



Even before I started this bass journey, I never watched music being created. I've heard it created, tho.

But what do you mean here? Surely you're not advocating that every Joe with a whim start dividing their listening time between listing to recordings and "creating music". The minute we start telling everyone that we all can contribute to the making of great music, the listeners who'd benefit most from hearing people who CAN make such a contribution are in their basement instead of out supporting the existence of great music Some of them need to listen and not play. Who's to judge that? Dunno, but it's true.

Kinda reminds me of conversation I once had with a teaching colleague and soccer fiend (plays rec league soccer and is a great disc golfer) who, when asked why Atlanta was such a poor sports town, relied, "It's not!!! It's a fantastic sports town!!! There are leagues for any sport you'd want to participate in. Any age group... any sport from fencing to disc gol- oh, you mean a sports spectator town.." the corners of his mouth turned down when he said the last part. I was slack-jawed with amazement at his comments. He actually thought his old, fat, slow recreational shinkicking deserves to be considered part of ATL's sports culture.

Watching it get created vs hearing....fair point. I had in mind the analogy of spectator sports when I wrote my post. Which is where you went, interestingly.

You differentiate between music and great music, which is a fair differentiation to make. But I don't see it's either / or. Nor am I sure where you draw the line at greatness. I play and get paid to play, but I imagine most of us here do that. Should you and I both stop playing because neither of us is Ron Carter? Should Ron Carter have stopped because in the early days he couldn't play? And why should we expect other musicians who aren't as skilled to support our musical journey at the cost of denying their own? I just can't see how that argument holds together, since it would imply most of us should stop playing because we aren't one of the greats.

To use your soccer analogy, there are a lot of levels between kicking your first ball in the backyard and running onto the pitch at a World Cup final.

 

[timobee4]

This was never going to go over well. Opponents of jazz don't want to dissect anything, read anything, understand anything.

They want to wiggle.

Yeah, so true! I know! I got sucked in! hahahahahaha

 

[timobee4]

No, they won't look at Entwistle's 'choice of substitutions'. But they may tallk about his "typewriter" technique, his experiments with amplification, and his lead-like timbre and playing style.

+1 to that!

 

[fingerbun]

This was never going to go over well. Opponents of jazz don't want to dissect anything, read anything, understand anything.

They want to wiggle.

Opponents of jazz?????????? ***?????

LOL. Many of my jazz 78rpms are labelled "foxtrot", "tango", "samba", etc. Wiggle, wiggle.

Lots of musical styles involved dissection. Why do you think us evil opponents are participating if not to learn from the exchange of ideas. (I assume I am classed as one of the opponents, even though I love some jazz.)

But let me ask you this. Do you listen to music because it's fun to analyse, or at some level does it get you in the heart as well as the head?

If for you it's totally cerebral, fine. For me the head is certainly involved, but the heart is the final arbiter.

And if it's all cerebral for you....well there was a post a while back about how taking in a jazz performance is like watching some guys solve a math problem

 

[HunterBrodt]

This was never going to go over well. Opponents of jazz don't want to dissect anything, read anything, understand anything.

They want to wiggle.

This says more about the work ethic of jazz musicians than anything.

I don't care what music people listen too, but someone who plays 1 4 5 blues and listens to hinder should not try to act like they have as much musical talent as ray brown. Im not going to go on web md and learn about arthritis and then argue with a doctor about how his opinion is elitist and inherently wrong.
Btw I think pino and Paul are both killin.

 

[Mayers]

Sorry to split hairs and differentiate between you being right vs wrong. You know, I am forming the opinion that you are just a real one eyed double bass snob. I will credit you that at least you admit it on your profile.

I am glad you are passionate about what you do. Hope your music goes well for you.

Now off you go....you need to practice the complex bits in "Darktown Strutters Ball" a bit more. That run up from the IV in the last 8 bars is soooooo tricky and unique

I don,t know if they will dissect any Ron Carter music but they never dissect Paul or any other pop/rock/punk music. Jazz and classical music is where it is when you go to a music school. They will teach you the more complex type of music. Rock is just too simple and has no formal value.

The truth is, no school will teach you stage presence or how to do your band marketing. Nor they will show you anything that you see/ear on tv.

 

[RBrownBass]

Watching it get created vs hearing....fair point. I had in mind the analogy of spectator sports when I wrote my post. Which is where you went, interestingly.

Cool!

You differentiate between music and great music, which is a fair differentiation to make. But I don't see it's either / or. Nor am I sure where you draw the line at greatness. I play and get paid to play, but I imagine most of us here do that. Should you and I both stop playing because neither of us is Ron Carter? Should Ron Carter have stopped because in the early days he couldn't play? And why should we expect other musicians who aren't as skilled to support our musical journey at the cost of denying their own? I just can't see how that argument holds together, since it would imply most of us should stop playing because we aren't one of the greats.

I do get paid to play, but I'd pass up a gig if Ron Carter was in town because I'd get more out of hearing him than I would out of any one of my gigs. And I while I've danced and drank and varous other activities to the Beatles, I wouldn't put Paul Mc on a level with Carter (or, for a more instrumentally equivalent comparison, Bob Crankshaw on slab) as a player. As a composer of catchy, hooky pop hits, he's without peer. That doesn't mean his contribution to music as a serious undertaking is as great as his contribution to music, period.

I'm beginning to realize that there's no way I can pretend that I don't draw a line between what I consider the serious and the merely entertaining. But I don't bother anyone who doesn't like or play something serious, and frankly, logging on here and seeing other people (not you) who claim the same instrument or love for music bashing one of its most challenging forms out of... ? really bugs me. What do these jazz bashers want? They go out to bars, get drunk, play Mustang Sally and girls wiggle. Why aren't wiggling girls enough to keep them happy (Kinda like a "You can keep your book l'arnin', you can keep your notes and your charts. All I need is three chords, three big-bootied women and a PBR" attitude)? They have to take the next step and attack forms of music that cause people to think rather than wiggle? On a forum supposedly dedicated to musicians??????????????

 

[RBrownBass]

(I assume I am classed as one of the opponents, even though I love some jazz.)

Not really, no.

From what I'm reading, you got caught up in a conversation with someone who's probably read far too many jazz-bashing posts. I know what that's like. I have to stop myself from responding every time I'm on the slab side and read someone bashing 6 strings, neck-thrus, active electronics, beautiful woods, solos, rounds, bridge pickups, you get it. It's like Bizzarro God sent a bunch of people to Talkbass to halt the development of basses and bass playing at a damn '56 P with flats.

 

[topo morto]

Rock is just too simple .

It would depend on what analysis you used.

and has no formal value.

How is 'formal value' measured?

The truth is, no school will teach you stage presence or how to do your band marketing.

I don't know where you are from, but here in the UK I think there are quite a few performing arts schools that do exactly that.

Here's one:

Invalid Link Removed

I would be surprised if the USA didn't have many more.

 

[timobee4]

Should you and I both stop playing because neither of us is Ron Carter?

These cats showed me what can be done and more, this is a personal journey for most of us and we must use whatever tools we can put our hands on. Classical music gives you the chops mainly, but jazz will make you think!!!!!!!!! Question, debate, argue, win, lose, hurt, happy, disappointed, frustrated, but always grow as a musician!!

My niece is a classical concert pianist and she can play any chart you put in front of her! But when we play together she can not channel her own thoughts into our jam because she ain't got none! I certainly know that that is why I help opening that rigid mind of hers as she only sees dots on the line. When I was 19 I wanted to kick my bass in on the way home from collage merely out of frustration because a friend (Rodrigo) was far more advanced than I at the time. Today I couldn't care that Cristian McBride plays faster or Dave Holland plays with more feeling or Ron Carter plays with more taste! The only thing that matters to me is how I play, how I fit my lines with the other instruments! My best buddy (second at the Monteux Jazz festival at a sax comp.) said once that although there are exceptions, to learn and fully embrace and understand jazz you have to start very young, I was a late starter at 12 but grateful that I did start rather than 17-20.