Double Bass Why no new Jazz Standards?

[Tom Lane]

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.

I think that's partially true. Since jazzers like to play the changes, many of them like interesting changes. There's no reason why someone couldn't take a great melody with simple, predictable changes and reharmonize it into something interesting, but, I think it's quite a challenge and seems to fail more than it succeeds. To support your case, though, Coltrane used Greensleeves to good advantage, so it can be done.

 

[damonsmith]

My premise has to do with jazz musicians agreeing on current pop enough for a consensus on adding contemporary pop tunes to the point of becoming "standards". All the artists you list have as much opposition as they do fans. The point being we just won't agree on any of them.

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.

 

[Tom Lane]

My premise has to do with jazz musicians agreeing on current pop enough for a consensus on adding contemporary pop tunes to the point of becoming "standards". All the artists you list have as much opposition as they do fans. The point being we just won't agree on any of them.

Certainly, this discussion proves that consensus can be very difficult to achieve!

 

[damonsmith]

Also, I think I have my arguments for not EVER using contemporary pop for sure. However, in terms of the few new tunes entering collective jazz rep. it would be seriously pathetic for it to be more pop schlock over any number of great tunes.
Another thing that has not been mentioned is that when the old standards came into the rep. there were far less jazz compositions in the world. There has been several decades of continuous jazz composing at this point.

 

[Don Kasper]

However, in terms of the few new tunes entering collective jazz rep. it would be seriously pathetic for it to be more pop schlock over any number of great tunes.

Can you provide an example of 1 of those "new tunes entering the collective jazz rep."?
(Your use of the word "collective" is intriguing.)
Thanks.

 

[damonsmith]

Can you provide an example of 1 of those "new tunes entering the collective jazz rep."?
(Your use of the word "collective" is intriguing.)
Thanks.

That is the big question here, isn't it? You point might actually be a great place to start. When the last tune people were expected to know showed up.

 

[hhalt]

Can you provide an example of 1 of those "new tunes entering the collective jazz rep."?
(Your use of the word "collective" is intriguing.)
Thanks.

I'm not sure it's possible for any new tunes to enter the "collective jazz rep", because there is such a glut of new material coming out just about every day. I checked out the Jazz Canvas-which contains some great music, but that is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of newer jazz compositions over the last 20 years. Students learning in a college environment are encouraged to learn standards and jazz standards, and, at least where I teach, are encouraged to compose right out of the gate. Everyone composes!!

 

[PauFerro]

I think it's possible. I had dinner with several musicians between performances this week. All four composers were supportive of starting a local real book with original compositions, and agreed to play each others music and evangelize the book to their own network. Start there. And then nurture it into something bigger...

 

[Don Kasper]

I'm not sure it's possible for any new tunes to enter the "collective jazz rep", because there is such a glut of new material coming out just about every day. I checked out the Jazz Canvas-which contains some great music, but that is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of newer jazz compositions over the last 20 years. Students learning in a college environment are encouraged to learn standards and jazz standards, and, at least where I teach, are encouraged to compose right out of the gate. Everyone composes!!

Yes. I agree.
The chances of a tune entering the "collective jazz rep" these days are slim-to-none, as far as I can see. The past's accepted & agreed upon & ('collective') "standard repertoire" is a relatively finite, chronologically frozen, group of tunes and styles and practices that each succeeding generation may or may not pull from - some more/some less. I'm fascinated by how much OR how little a young improvising jazz musician feels compelled to study/assimilate/absorb the past before setting out to find their own voice, both as improvisors AND (especially as) composers. The Past "standard repertoire" can function both an inspiration as well as an ANCHOR - demanding that the History of The Past be assimilated before looking to the future is not a reasonable approach and may intimidate and quash new thinking and ideas/approaches.
In my experience, as I'm exclusively a Sideman, I'm always on the lookout for what (tunes) my peers are listening to and take very seriously my study of tunes/styles/players/concepts so that I'm able to (hopefully) function in a musical way when I'm asked to participate in those situations.
There is also much that I DON'T pursue - (Free Jazz, for example), and I would never accept and show up on a Free Jazz gig under the assumption that I listen to and study that repertoire. I don't.
I think knowing one's strong & weak areas are important to building a reputation as a player (at whatever level.)
Finally - YES - the composition area is possibly the most important aspect (esp. these days), as there are Infinite/Instant Mountains of Sounds that young musicians need to distinguish themselves from, in order to reach and build an audience.
There is much more to explore on this topic, but I'll STFU for now.
Thanks.

 

[hhalt]

I think it's possible. I had dinner with several musicians between performances this week. All four composers were supportive of starting a local real book with original compositions, and agreed to play each others music and evangelize the book to their own network. Start there. And then nurture it into something bigger...

I really like this idea, but a real challenge to go beyond the local level. But does it matter, as long as musicians are being creative and hopefully reaching an audience?

 

[Tom Lane]

Yes. I agree.
The chances of a tune entering the "collective jazz rep" these days are slim-to-none, as far as I can see. The past's accepted & agreed upon & ('collective') "standard repertoire" is a relatively finite, chronologically frozen, group of tunes and styles and practices that each succeeding generation may or may not pull from - some more/some less. I'm fascinated by how much OR how little a young improvising jazz musician feels compelled to study/assimilate/absorb the past before setting out to find their own voice, both as improvisors AND (especially as) composers. The Past "standard repertoire" can function both an inspiration as well as an ANCHOR - demanding that the History of The Past be assimilated before looking to the future is not a reasonable approach and may intimidate and quash new thinking and ideas/approaches.
In my experience, as I'm exclusively a Sideman, I'm always on the lookout for what (tunes) my peers are listening to and take very seriously my study of tunes/styles/players/concepts so that I'm able to (hopefully) function in a musical way when I'm asked to participate in those situations.
There is also much that I DON'T pursue - (Free Jazz, for example), and I would never accept and show up on a Free Jazz gig under the assumption that I listen to and study that repertoire. I don't.
I think knowing one's strong & weak areas are important to building a reputation as a player (at whatever level.)
Finally - YES - the composition area is possibly the most important aspect (esp. these days), as there are Infinite/Instant Mountains of Sounds that young musicians need to distinguish themselves from, in order to reach and build an audience.
There is much more to explore on this topic, but I'll STFU for now.
Thanks.

Tell me if I`m wrong but I think you're saying that jazz musicians should be artists first.

 

[PauFerro]

With today's viral abilities, the internet, and discussion forums like these, I think it would be feasible to go beyond the local market - more than ever before.

The REal Book started at Berkley, I believe with a few people using it, and then it grew to the point I saw a copy in Canada, and discovered a big network of musicians that were using it.

If I posted the first edition of this book here (remember, it's free), along with some recorded play along samples of the melody and backing tracks, would you use them? And if not, would consider subscribing to a youtube channel where there are new videos of people doing the original tunes for you to like, or unlike? Or maybe, even participate in a thread here on it? A site has the free book available for download too, and you can even submit your own songs to it for voting by Youtubers and people on jazz related discussion forums. Would you participate in any of that?

 

[Don Kasper]

Tell me if I`m wrong but I think you're saying that jazz musicians should be artists first.

Oy Vey... "ART/ARTIST" discussions give me the Heebie Jeebies.
Well, maybe I'm just saying that there will always need to be innovative, rebellious, disrupters, ("artists?") of the jazz "tradition" to ensure that the evolutionary process continues.
And...
FYI - I consider myself (on my best day) to be a Craftsman - I have not innovated, rebelled, or artistically disrupted the jazz world (in any Positive Way!), but have merely attempted to function as a competent practitioner and student of the genre and of those whose work/art I admire.
Also - I hold this concept that the title of "Artist" is given to a practitioner and creator of "Art", NOT assumed, (by the practitioner), as a title before there has been any outside agreement that some "Art" has been created - see "What Came First - the Chicken or the Egg?".
If I ever Craft a particularly creative and noteworthy effort, I'll let others call it "Art", if they choose. I'll feel comfortable just saying I Crafted something of value. Others will decide if it is "Art".
This Topic may need it's own Tom Lane Mega-Thread.
IMFO.
Thanks.

 

[Sean Riddle]

I'm not sure it's possible for any new tunes to enter the "collective jazz rep", because there is such a glut of new material coming out just about every day. I checked out the Jazz Canvas-which contains some great music, but that is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of newer jazz compositions over the last 20 years. Students learning in a college environment are encouraged to learn standards and jazz standards, and, at least where I teach, are encouraged to compose right out of the gate. Everyone composes!!

Students being encouraged to compose while at school is such a wonderful and important thing. I'm currently going to the school where Peter Epstein, Adam Benjamin, and Ralph Alessi (aka CalArts) were exposed to writing right out of the gate and it does lead to some wonderful and honest music happening at the school. It's been pretty beneficial for me, even though I still a lot more growth as a writer.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

The REal Book started at Berkley, I believe with a few people using it, and then it grew to the point I saw my first copy in Canada.

The Real Book did originate at Berklee, and by 1983 the illegal RB was actually my harmony textbook there. We students were required to buy it on the street corner of Mass Ave and Boylston before the second day of class from a guy who was literally wearing a trench coat and dark glasses and who never touched the books. Truth is stranger than fiction.

But the story behind how it came to be is a bit more complicated and has more history than I first assumed. John Goldsby recommended this book on the subject to me, and it's really excellent: https://www.amazon.com/Story-Fake-Books-Bootlegging-Musicians/dp/0810857278

 

[PauFerro]

In my town in Canada, you had to go to a music store located at the top of one of those downtown row-buildings. I was also told you have to be a "professional" if they were to sell the book to you. People told me you had to quietly ask for the book and tell them who had sent you there. Then they would bring it out from under the counter and you'd pay a whopping $50 for it, back in the 1990's. I am so glad that Hal Leonard made them legal, although I'm sad some of the changes aren't the same, and some of the tunes in the original real book aren't in the legal ones. So when guys call tunes you get caught sometimes because you don't have the chart. That's where I hear IRealB comes into play.

What surprises me is how willing the musicians were to participate in such illegal activity. Good honest people all had them. It shows that when the industry is structured so it doesn't meet the needs of the ultimate consumer, people will take matters into their own hands. Like when no one was willing to pay $24 for prime CD's so they could get the one song they liked off the album -- and so music pirating became rampant.

Do you think Hal Leonard has copyright on the "Real Book" name? Or could anyone create their own songbook with "Real Book" in the title? Probably a question for a lawyer.

 

[PauFerro]

Tell me if I`m wrong but I think you're saying that jazz musicians should be artists first.

Artists bring a lot of quality to music, that is for sure. But without the entrepreneurs and hired guns who just go ouand play, nothing would happen. Some people are a healthy mixture of these three roles, but in my experience, if everyone was an artist, and none of the other two roles, you'd have a stalled industry for jazz....

I am not sure if the artists would be the ones to really create, in a conscious way, tunes that would become the new standards. I think you need to be a bit of a pragmatist and produce songs that are simple in structure, but have decent chord changes. Many artists would produce the latter, but I think they might balk at the former as a criterion.

 

[Timmy-Watts]

Not many new tunes have that kind of poetry and melody of the old standards.

Also, jazz standards (now) were by and large pop tunes of the day. We play Beetles, Chicago, and Steely Dan and a lot of other more recent music that has melody and functioning chord changes that are interesting, in a trio/acoustic format. Maybe in 20 years some of those will become "standards."

Oh, we also do Fred Hersch, recent Herbie, Wayne, Schofield, etc. Plenty of new jazz to be learned and played.

 

[Sam Sherry]

The old Real Book was, ironically, an effort to set down correct melodies and changes, and provide references for further exploration.

The predecessors to the old Real Book were bound bunches of photocopies (1) of lead-sheets to Broadway tunes. They were literally sold under the counter in old-school mom-and-pop music stores. (2)

The reason those fake books sucked so bad -- the reason that the Real Book plowed such a fertile field -- was that a lot of those photocopy fake books featured the ukelele tabs (3) and they were in code! For example, if a chart said "C6" that could denote either A-, A-7, C 6/9, CMaj7 or "rockabilly C" root-with-fifth-up-to-sixth. In contrast, the old Real Book had easy-to-read chords, most of which are accurate. Many of the 'modern' charts were drawn from the composers' sheets (even if they were not actually authorized by the composers). (4)

The rise of the old Real Book coincided with two unrelated phenomena, the first major growth of collegiate academic jazz programs (5) and the integration of rock influences into jazz writing (6) (7). The result could be described as a) a ready market for a fairly sound, if illicit, resource; b) an increase in lazy young players uninclined to invest time and effort to create their own charts; and/or c) an increase in jazz whiz kids who grasped a chance to jump to 'step three' thinking that they would catch up with 'step two' later.

Ah well. We now return you to, "Sonic Effect Of Hollow End-Pins."


(1) Photocopies were then called "Xeroxes."
(2) At that time there were single-outlet physical stores which sold everything from orange-box Rico clarinet reeds to Black Diamond banjo strings.
(3) For decades before the current hipster revivals ukeleles and accordions was dead instruments.
(4) Composers, film-makers and authors once had some measure of property rights in their creations.
(5) Prior to which college students were actively discouraged by their music institutions from working on jazz at school.
(6) Up until the British Invasion jazz musicians and composers usually scorned rock music as 'commercial pap.' Some still do, as noted in previous posts on this thread, and they are of course welcome to their opinions on the topic.
(7) Another broader societal factor was the pervasive influence of youthful hedonism. A lot of fun was being had and much of which was illegal. Ensuring that Rogers & Hammerstein's publisher got their five cents was a low priority.

 

[hhalt]

if everyone was an artist, and none of the other two roles, you'd have a stalled industry for jazz....

I firmly believe that jazz can be art AND entertainment. The problem is many leave out the 2nd half of the equation. I just played a concert with Ravi Coltrane for a fundraiser for our jazz program. He didn't say a word to the audience! It was awkward to say the least. On the other hand, my guitar trio always plays at least one free composition during our set. We ask the audience for a word, and then we go. We always get a great response. There are ways to engage the audience regardless of how challenging the music is. Probably a topic for another thread....