Double Bass Why no new Jazz Standards?

[PauFerro]

I do think it's splitting hairs about the term "standards". I have heard the distinction, and as an academic, have been beat up and bloodied for not being precise in my terminology. But in this case, I don't know of an all encompassing term that describes songs musicians tend to call reqgularly, whether jazzified pop hits, show tunes or jazz compositions. And in my experience, most jazz musicians just call them standards.

 

[Michael Case]

So one thing I've noticed in this thread and that is Damon's insistence that standards are musical "common ground." Do you really believe that EVERY jazz musician has always agreed on tunes? I can't imagine that every player agreed on tune like "All Of Me" for example. And let's be honest, most of the standards did not have the harmonic complexities in their original form, they were much simpler. Another point being overlooked is that adapting songs from pop and other contexts IS a part of the tradition, otherwise tunes like "All Of Me" would be under six feet of dirt at this point.

 

[hhalt]

And let's be honest, most of the standards did not have the harmonic complexities in their original form, they were much simpler.

I would disagree with this. The harmonic structure of tunes like "All of You", "All the Things You Are", "Stella", "My Romance", "if I Were a Bell", are quite complex with key changes and secondary dominants. That is one reason they are so important to master as a jazz improviser.

 

[skwee]

We also have to keep in mind that many of the songs we consider standards are music theater pieces from what many consider to be a golden age: Gershwin, Porter, etc.

This thread has me thinking of tunes I'd consider standards now, having heard them numerous times on the bandstand or on a recording: Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah, Nirvana's Come As You Are, Eagles' Hotel California, Queen's Somebody to Love, lots of Beatles' tunes.

 

[Don Kasper]

"All Of Me" for example

tunes like "All of You"

All of Me/All of You.
What a Difference a Word Makes.

 

[damonsmith]

So one thing I've noticed in this thread and that is Damon's insistence that standards are musical "common ground." Do you really believe that EVERY jazz musician has always agreed on tunes? I can't imagine that every player agreed on tune like "All Of Me" for example.

I think the opinions each of carries about particular standards at this point are going to be about musical grounds as opposed to generational and personal identity - I mean, in 99% of my performances I am going veto ANY pre-given material. There is no standard that I dislike as much as any of the pop music from my lifetime that I was not into.
I still study standards and I am always working through a few in my practice.

The point being: we just can't equate being tired of playing All of Me to growing up diametrically opposed to hair metal!

 

[Tom Lane]

All of Me/All of You.
What a Difference a Word Makes.

Proving that lyrics don't usually matter... but I have found exceptions.

 

[Tom Lane]

I think the opinions each of carries about particular standards at this point are going to be about musical grounds as opposed to generational and personal identity - I mean, in 99% of my performances I am going veto ANY pre-given material. There is no standard that I dislike as much as any of the pop music from my lifetime that I was not into.
I still study standards and I am always working through a few in my practice.

The point being: we just can't equate being tired of playing All of Me to growing up diametrically opposed to hair metal!

I'll probably regret this... but can you elaborate?

 

[Don Kasper]

Proving that lyrics don't usually matter... but I have found exceptions.

Agreed. Most lyrics of the so-called Great American Songbook/Tin Pan Alley/Broadway era (1930 - 1960 or so), are for me, silly and irrelevant at best and sometimes misogynistically embarrassing at worst. (Check out the lyrics to "All Of Me", fer instance! Do you think this was written by a WOMAN???) This is part of the Generational disconnect that has been mentioned here.
By the way, much of MY Generation's Pop lyrics (60's - 90's) fall into that sad trashcan, as well. This may be a function of ALL Popular Music's immediate/simple, but strong connection to its target audience, whether the year is 1930 or 2017.
Remember - Never trust any Lyrics over the age of 30.
Groovy.

 

[hhalt]

Now in a cottage built of lilacs and laughter
I know the meaning of the words "Ever after"
And I'll always see polka dots and moonbeams
When I kiss the pug-nosed dream

One of my favorite standards until I actually checked out the lyrics!

 

[Don Kasper]

see polka dots and moonbeams

Was this lyric written while on ACID?
Just sayin'.

 

[Don Kasper]

This is not a standard, by any means, but it is more socially relevant and resonates (lyrically) to me, (and possibly my ge-ge-generation...) than "The White Cliffs of Dover".
Thanks, Tom Waits.

 

[damonsmith]

I'll probably regret this... but can you elaborate?

Just what I have been saying - the social function of pop music is to define and divide generations - Nirvana was meant for people my age into a certain area of punk rock not to like, it is just one of many generation breaks. Punk was meant for those into hip-hop and Motley Crue not to like (later pot unified a lot of the cliques, but that is another discussion).
The lyrics to most standards are dumb, sure, they don't have the baggage pop carries its own time.
I don't really care about any standard outside of the historical aspect. Certain pop I am just sick of hearing about (Prince, Talking Heads, Eno) but understand an inherent quality. Other examples I just always hated for what it stands for as well as what it sounds like (Nivana, Motley Crue, Grateful Dead, Steely Dan etc.) even certain pop musicians like Sting and Elvis Costello who maintain high musical standards are just adult contemporary fluff to my ears.
Lots of people wouldn't like the pop music that doesn't irritate me. Pop music is something people rarely feel neutral about.
We are just not going to find a meeting point with any of it - certainly not as wide of a common ground as the old standards and music written by jazz masters.

 

[damonsmith]

This is not a standard, by any means, but it is more socially relevant and resonates (lyrically) to me, (and possibly my ge-ge-generation...) than "The White Cliffs of Dover".
Thanks, Tom Waits.

Waits, in certain way, could actually work. His music has a lot going for it:
1. It was never music for kids or a particular generation for that matter
2. It isn't overly smooth or bland while having enough melodic and harmonic content to work with
3. He uses jazz instrumentation (and then some, but still) and jazz musicians (and loves Ornette!)
4. There are tensions and interesting chords
5. He fired me (!)

 

[sean_on_bass]

I'd like to challenge the notion that seems to be prevailing that tunes with simple harmonic structures are in any way bad or unworthy of being a standard. Not a great line of thinking and only contributes to jazz snobbery with no benefit. If a tune is good a tune is good. It shouldn't matter how many chords they managed to fit into it.

 

[project_c]

I'd like to challenge the notion that seems to be prevailing that tunes with simple harmonic structures are in any way bad or unworthy of being a standard. Not a great line of thinking and only contributes to jazz snobbery with no benefit. If a tune is good a tune is good. It shouldn't matter how many chords they managed to fit into it.

True. Many great jazz tunes have simple structures. So What only has 2 chords, and it's one of the most famous jazz tunes of all time. And it can be a complex tune to play, regardless of the simplicity.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

All of Me/All of You.
What a Difference a Word Makes.

Since one of my hobbies is shaging with singers, anytime a singer calls either of these, I profess not knowing which one they're referring to and then, as if to clarify, sing the lyric of one to the melody of the other. I can do that with SEPTEMBER SONG and SEPTEMBER IN THE RAIN....

 

[hhalt]

Again, I think it is useful to define "Standards" as tunes from the 30-40's that jazz musicians have adopted. I would be hard-pressed to find any tune of this era with very simple changes. "Jazz standards" are composed by jazz musicians either using song forms derived from standards-Monk, Bird, or in the case of Miles-very simple modal harmony. This was a reaction against the complexities of be-bop and complex tonal harmony, which allows the musician to more freely improvise and get away from the cliches of bebop. Yes, simple is good!

 

[Joshua]

Marcin Wasilewski Trio, Prince's Diamond and Pearls

I liked that a lot!

I'll happily admit to enjoying a lot of Prince's music, and think some of it would translate very well in a jazz setting. Very musical arrangements with lots of space for improvisation? Hard to see a talented artist not being able to work with that.

Playing a tune as a "cover" without finding your own voice to say it in is different than connecting with a pop tune and celebrating it with your own interpretation.

Bam!

 

[Tom Lane]

Just what I have been saying - the social function of pop music is to define and divide generations - Nirvana was meant for people my age into a certain area of punk rock not to like, it is just one of many generation breaks. Punk was meant for those into hip-hop and Motley Crue not to like (later pot unified a lot of the cliques, but that is another discussion).
The lyrics to most standards are dumb, sure, they don't have the baggage pop carries its own time.
I don't really care about any standard outside of the historical aspect. Certain pop I am just sick of hearing about (Prince, Talking Heads, Eno) but understand an inherent quality. Other examples I just always hated for what it stands for as well as what it sounds like (Nivana, Motley Crue, Grateful Dead, Steely Dan etc.) even certain pop musicians like Sting and Elvis Costello who maintain high musical standards are just adult contemporary fluff to my ears.
Lots of people wouldn't like the pop music that doesn't irritate me. Pop music is something people rarely feel neutral about.
We are just not going to find a meeting point with any of it - certainly not as wide of a common ground as the old standards and music written by jazz masters.

Okay, thanks for elaborating. I gave this some consideration and have to respectfully disagree because I think your premise is both inaccurate and irrelevant. It's inaccurate because while a lot of pop music is intended to offend kid's parents, not all is. Michael Jackson, Madonna, Bruno Mars, they seem to be primarily motivated to appeal to the greatest number of people possible. If not them, Barry Manilow, Neil Diamond, etc. Next, even if your premise were true, I don't think it's relevant because few consumers would likely recognize a tune originally intended to offend parents once it's dressed up. Case in point, Christian McBride used to play the Police's Walking on the Moon, and Sting commented that he didn't recognize it.
We could probably play this game for a long time, citing example and counter example, but it wouldn't clarify the issue at hand.