Not really. You get sum and difference frequencies generated which add elements to the harmony which weren't in the played notes at all.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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 Why isn't Jazz that popular? (DB forum thread)
- Thread starter gai113
- Start date
Not really. You get sum and difference frequencies generated which add elements to the harmony which weren't in the played notes at all.
You're right, the 'notation' aspect of it is a bit of a red herring.
BTW the beatles have one too...
The Beatles- A Day in the Life - YouTube
Distortion add overtone by compressing the peaks of the sound wave of an instrument. If you play a Cmaj7 chord with or without distortion effect, it is still a Cmaj7 chord !!! It doesn't change magicaly what you played !!!
This is an interesting thread. I study jazz and just did an assignment kind of relating to this... If you want to take it from a historical perspective, jazz was really the mainstream between approx 1935 and 1945 (swing era stuff). But with WWII, decline of big bands, plus the emergence of bebop jazz seems to have continued in a trend that emphasises musicianship, thereby reducing the applicable audience. The same thing applies in the realms of prog rock/metal with bands like Dream Theater. It would seem that more musically developed and involved material requires a more musically developed and involved listener. We could apply all of this to classical music too in a way I think...
Just my 2 cents
Just my 2 cents
But it does very drastically change the harmony that is heard. For example, you will generate pitches that are below the fundamental frequencies of any of the notes that you actually played. So in simple terms, it does change what you played (not magically though - just maths I'm afraid
)But it does very drastically change the harmony that is heard. For example, you will generate pitches that are below the fundamental frequencies of any of the notes that you actually played. So in simple terms, it does change what you played (not magically though - just maths I'm afraid
No it doesn't change the harmony. A Cmaj7 chord will always be a Cmaj7 chord no matter the effect you use, the instrument you choose or if you use wierd stuff to play it.
In the 90, MTV did the MTV Unplugged series. Most the band that played where rock or pop bands ... bands that use distortion effect most of the time ... and the songs they played are the same with accoustic guitar or electric. They didn't have to change the key center or any chords in the songs to make it works.
OK... I think you just haven't messed with distortion enough! Different example...
Play a C diminished chord, closely voiced, in the middle of the piano keyboard.
Sounds tense, but smooth enough.
Now play it right down at the bottom.
Sounds like hell exploding!
To say 'but it's the same chord' is to focus way too much on 'where you're putting your fingers'.
The fact that it works doesn't mean it sounds the same.
And try playing your average jazz guitar chord comp though a Rat turned up full. That definitely won't work!
Earlier I said there were things jazz guys don't get when they play pop. This discussion has demonstrated exactly what I was trying to say.
Jazz guy is working around notes and harmonies and seeking to describe the world in those terms. Rock guy is describing the process of shaping sound, which is not so formally codified, but it still a high skill.
The notion that "distortion is distortion" is a great example. A Mesa Boogie has a different sound to a Marshall to a Fender - but of course to someone whose definitions of music is about notes played acoustically, with amplification either absent or a tool to make the acoustic sound louder without changing it, the notion of amplification and processing as an integral part of the creative process is not a focus area. So jazz guy walks in with a great jazz amp, say Mesa Boogie - and doesn't understand why metal guys who want a Marshall sound think he sounds muddy.
Of course, if I were to pose a similar question on a topic relevant to acoustic upright bass - say what are the better strings, Sprios, Obligatos or Helicores - many of you would get passionate about it. I hit that recently when I expressed a preference for Helicore Hybrids over Spiros
And to my knowledge you can't precisely describe those differences between strings in musical notation.The wiki article says it's notes starting closely spaced (200 to 400Hz), and then diverging(To a 3 octave spread).... not converging..?
PLaying average jazz chord through a distortion doesn't sound right because it is too aggressive, but you still played average jazz chords. You could play "all the thing you are" with heavy distortion from a chart and it will be the same thing but with distortion.
So to you a C note played by a EB or by a DB pizzicato or a DB arco sound like different note ?
Of course a C note in low register and the middle C or a very high C isn't the same register but still, it is a C.
Earlier I said there were things jazz guys don't get when they play pop. This discussion has demonstrated exactly what I was trying to say.
Jazz guy is working around notes and harmonies and seeking to describe the world in those terms. Rock guy is describing the process of shaping sound, which is not so formally codified, but it still a high skill.
The notion that "distortion is distortion" is a great example. A Mesa Boogie has a different sound to a Marshall to a Fender - but of course to someone whose definitions of music is about notes played acoustically, with amplification either absent or a tool to make the acoustic sound louder without changing it, the notion of amplification and processing as an integral part of the creative process is not a focus area. So jazz guy walks in with a great jazz amp, say Mesa Boogie - and doesn't understand why metal guys who want a Marshall sound think he sounds muddy.
Of course, if I were to pose a similar question on a topic relevant to acoustic upright bass - say what are the better strings, Sprios, Obligatos or Helicores - many of you would get passionate about it. I hit that recently when I expressed a preference for Helicore Hybrids over Spiros
All that to me is just artistic choice, it doesn't change the fact that you played a Cmaj7 chord with a Fender Strat through any amp it won't be a Cmaj7 anymore.
As far as I know I could pluck a C note on my DB with a dead chicken because I like the tone that it produce that it won't be a C note because I used a dead chicken ...
Keep turning that gain up. It won't just sound aggressive - it will sound a complete mess, because you generated a bunch of new frequencies that don't work harmonically together in the same way as the frequencies present in the spectra of the original notes.
EDIT: And if you don't hear a heavily distorted chord as harmonically different, what about putting the chord though ring modulation? or FM?
The pitch of the fundamental is the same (if it's the same C), other aspects of the sound are different...
I think this should be conceded as correct. Most jazz players can be amazing technicians - but sometimes they don't see the forest for the trees. I think to Christian McBrides' funkier/rocker recordings.... would I choose to listen to that over say... James Brown? Not really. I dunno. It's fair to say some folks want to pay homage to their heroes and whatnot but sometimes the emotional power simply isn't there or is the same.
Let me spin a previous post of mine. The other half of my life consists of alot of active sports: rock climbing, skiing, mountain biking, kayaking, etc. Sometimes I indulge in dancing at clubs - house, techno, etc. etc. Yeah "lesser" styles.
IME, jazz sucks at trying to narrate something I'm about to do that involves alot of focus and adrenaline. I once tried to listen to Miles 2nd Quintet while skiing all over Squaw Valley and it was horrible. I couldn't concentrate. Rush did a better job.
These days, common culture is filled with activities that are adrenaline fueled. Jazz has a hard time speaking to that. Sorry, I'm not going be listening to jazz when I'm play most mainstream sports (football, basketball, soccer, etc. etc.). It's not going to pump my psyche up so I can crush my opponents. It's not what jazz does 99% of the time.
You can be a badass playing jazz, but it doesn't make you feel like one by listening to it. I love jazz, but that isn't something that I use it for.
Jazz doesn't put the listener into a trance like house or techno does. When I'm dancing, I don't want to be actively listening. Too much work. Sometimes I just want to turn off and "tune" into the music and get carried away. Lots of people want that - they just want to escape their troubles. Active listening to something considered a high art doesn't really do that well.
Just as I said earlier, for jazz critics to put jazz down is silly if you're not living it - but also equally silly if the jazz lover doesn't put their shoes into the mainstream world to understand why it's not so appealing.
Like I said before... 95% of the mainstream audience out there just wants a soundtrack to their lives. They're not looking for something that forces them to actively listen. The closest you'll get from the jazz world that is in that vein is probably MMW. Though jazz has tribal roots, it doesn't do "tribal" that well.
HEy Treyser, dunno if you are still there, but I am curious about the level of artistic freedom you had in your non-jazz session life.
Did you find you were usually asked to (a) listen to a piece and create a bass line or (b) create a bass line from slash charts or (c) play dots as written?
Likewise with sound, did you have a range of slabs for different contexts, or did you walk in with a safe choice, say a P, or did you play what they gave you?
I'm going to assume the bass usually went straight to the desk and the producer determined the final sound.
The questions are relevant to this thread because they indicate the skills you had to use in this kind of work.
Did you find you were usually asked to (a) listen to a piece and create a bass line or (b) create a bass line from slash charts or (c) play dots as written?
Likewise with sound, did you have a range of slabs for different contexts, or did you walk in with a safe choice, say a P, or did you play what they gave you?
I'm going to assume the bass usually went straight to the desk and the producer determined the final sound.
The questions are relevant to this thread because they indicate the skills you had to use in this kind of work.
You don't need to actively listen to jazz any more than any kind of music. My satellite radio plays streaming jazz all day long. It's the soundtrack to my puttering around the house.
Jazz is alive and well. You don't have to dig it. Same as I never listen to Entwhistle any more.....
