Double Bass Why no new Jazz Standards?

[PauFerro]

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.

I have a couple guys I hire that play with other musicians regularly. They say that the tunes I call are not usually the ones that other cats in town call -- so, there is probably a significant amount of diversity in what gets called. There was a list called the New York Ninety at one point, which indicated all the standards you need to know to gig in New York....not sure if it was accurate, but I think you could point to that as a short list of what is in that regional vocabulary of songs.

But I will say this -- one reason I think the book of standards hasn't grown beyond the songs in the 70's and before is that all we had was the illegal Real Book -- the better songs that meet criteria that gigging musicians use unconsciously, were the ones that became the standards list.

The book "The Story of Fake Books" indicated that even though other publishers came out with other fake books that have a similar quality as the illegal Real Book (ie, The New Real Book), most people only wanted to play out of one book due to the issue of lugging around so many books. That concern is mitigated somewhat by iPads and electronic transmission of sheet music via the internet.

I do think it's possible to develop a new vocabulary of songs out there though. The availability of relatively simple songs, that musicians can just play without rehearsal, that have great melodies and interesting chord changes, to me, is the essence of what it takes -- just like religions need scriptures.

For example, songs that have multiple "movements" etcetera and require many rehearsals to play well are more in the hobby range of tunes, or a serious tribute band act. Songs that are good, but require someone to sit down and transcribe the chords and melody just to play it are less likely to be played regularly. Also, songs that are so complicated only people with 14 hours a day to practice can play them, won't cut it.

One famous jazz composer published all his songs in Real Book format and said that he had done away with many of the fancy arrangements in certain songs so the songs would be "accessible to all".

Anyway, back to whether this will work -- can you point to any books that have made it easy to play new jazz, affordabiy? One person gave a link to the Jazz Canvas project where Wycliffe Gordon, Ben Williams, Linda Oh and other current stars in the jazz genre published original tunes. But does anyone know about it? And will it go viral? Not at $20 a book, with it not well known. I also had to work pretty hard to search for some of the tunes on Youtube to even hear what they sound like. And some of them were pretty weird. I doubt I would play them as a result.

Give me a book of simpler tunes, that are interesting, with a ready Youtube video or MP3 right in front of me to listen to the tune, and the freedom to play and distribute them free -- that could encourage a newer book of standards.

If there is a desire for new standards, I think the key is well charted, newer songs, easy to listen to, with musicians who introduce them to their bands....

 

[Sean Riddle]

"Sometimes we tend to forget that before Charlie Parker played his music, it didn't exist"-Anthony Braxton.

Heard this quote last night while watching Braxton's NEA Jazz Master speech. This quote and a lot the speech has some really interesting points about progressing the music and repotoire forward.

 

[sean_on_bass]

That quote says alot. Also if you think about where modern jazz has taken things, it's not all that easy to chart what is steeped in improvisation and experimentation. New jazz really challenges the listener and musicians alike and even if you manage to chart art, your run of the mill locals won't be able to play it. Jazz has gotten pretty far out there.

 

[Steven Ayres]

My very first job was working in a museum. I like old cars, old instruments, old things and machines. I'm what one of the psych-profile schemes labels a "loyalist." That naturally alters my focus, and helps explain my experience, as a college freshman playing jazz on dorm radio for four hours every Sunday night, that 40 years ago jazz was moving steadily away from the hips to the head, and I really wasn't attracted to becoming a sophisticate in that regard. It wasn't my thing and still isn't. I need music with hips.

That year I saw Miles onstage disrespecting the audience, his bandmates, his music and himself so hatefully that I lost all interest in him as an artist. I also saw Dizzy give an astonishing performance and a hourlong workshop on rhythm that was at least as illuminating as any ten-week theory class, all with gentle humility and respect for the stupidest question.

So when I hear sophisticated judgments about what's "progress" in jazz and what's too old to bear, I'm unimpressed. What is actual "progress"? That four-hour evening jazz show remains a staple of public radio formats today, primarily because of loyalist programmers and listeners. As a producer of public radio I often hear musicians deride these shows for failing to focus enough on novel music, in much the same tone I see here directed at Wynton and other loyalists, as if it's those loyal listeners who are stunting the growth of jazz. I submit that if there is vice in loyalty, so too there is in novelty.

I don't mean to characterize anyone here, but too often I hear raw novelty being sold as progressive. Wynton (usually) chooses to focus on traditions that we should all know better than we do, and focus necessarily limits vision. But having met the man and seen him work a rehearsal I feel confident that he respects the artists who bring good new music to the world. I don't see him accepting raw novelty as progress, however.

So, again, what does "progress" mean to you in the jazz context? What distinguishes progress from simple diversion?

 

[sean_on_bass]

To me it is quite simply doing something that has never been done before. You are progressing the genre by introducing a new palette that wasn't there before and now becomes part of the overall pool. Although it really comes down to your own perception of what is actually progressive, and there is no real definitive definition. To some, a rebirth of traditional jazz might be considered progressive because they are part of a generation that never experienced it, while those that lived it consider it old hat. But even that new generation could develop the historical knowledge to ultimately agree with those who deem it past expiration.

 

[Josh Kneisel]

I'd say progress is taking something you like and adding to it and changing it and making it more than it was before. I feel like there are a few bands doing this right now. (GoGo Penguin comes to mind)

 

[Don Kasper]

I submit that if there is vice in loyalty, so too there is in novelty.

Wow. Dude can WRITE.
Nicely put, Steven Ayres.
Thanks.

 

[Steven Ayres]

Wow. Dude can WRITE.

Thanks, Don!

 

[Steven Ayres]

You are progressing the genre by introducing a new palette that wasn't there before and now becomes part of the overall pool.

OK, here's where I'll try to loop back to the thread and get out of the way. I think a lot of us here would agree with Seanto here, and it leads to the point I'd like to make. We tend to think in terms of the lone bold innovator creating the future in his tower, and neglect the mass of listeners who love the innovation and the journeymen who take it up and apply it to new innovation. For that to work, you can't get too far out in front of the pack. That's not leading, that's riding off into a box canyon, a diversion, maybe an interesting one, but not moving anyone in a useful direction. The viciousness of novelty.

At the risk of teaching grandma how to suck eggs, I'll point out that there was a time when jazz didn't exist, but over a significant amount of time musicians took what they knew, changed it up, shared it and made a new thing that needed a new name. A hundred years later many of us here want to hear something new, but do you really need it to be called the same thing? In the '70s I had new records coming in every other day on which I heard all sorts of new things, many of which I could only strain to call "jazz" because that's what the record companies called it, perhaps because someone was playing sax on it and it was all serious. To me a lot of it better fit the "classical" bin.

So when OP asks about new jazz standards, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect the winners will be those that fit into a setlist alongside the winners of the past. Working within a genre, a composer is looking inside. When you're looking outside, you've left genre behind and you have to decide what to call it, because it's that new. You can't write a romantic ballad and reasonably call it hiphop.

 

[buldog5151bass]

Because what is in the Real Books used to be the pop music of the time. There are some "newer" tunes in some of the Books, but it's gonna be a while before Adele tunes are played by jazz bands.

 

[Drgonzonm]

I did search for jazz standards, it surprised me how many standards were nursery rhymes and folk tunes. When I reviewed the danish jazz scene, it appeared that the Danes are converting their folk tunes and rhymes to jazz. There were comments about being able to play simpler arrangements. To me, the Danes are following the American cycle.

 

[koricancowboy]

My very first job was working in a museum. I like old cars, old instruments, old things and machines. I'm what one of the psych-profile schemes labels a "loyalist." That naturally alters my focus, and helps explain my experience, as a college freshman playing jazz on dorm radio for four hours every Sunday night, that 40 years ago jazz was moving steadily away from the hips to the head, and I really wasn't attracted to becoming a sophisticate in that regard. It wasn't my thing and still isn't. I need music with hips.

That year I saw Miles onstage disrespecting the audience, his bandmates, his music and himself so hatefully that I lost all interest in him as an artist. I also saw Dizzy give an astonishing performance and a hourlong workshop on rhythm that was at least as illuminating as any ten-week theory class, all with gentle humility and respect for the stupidest question.

So when I hear sophisticated judgments about what's "progress" in jazz and what's too old to bear, I'm unimpressed. What is actual "progress"? That four-hour evening jazz show remains a staple of public radio formats today, primarily because of loyalist programmers and listeners. As a producer of public radio I often hear musicians deride these shows for failing to focus enough on novel music, in much the same tone I see here directed at Wynton and other loyalists, as if it's those loyal listeners who are stunting the growth of jazz. I submit that if there is vice in loyalty, so too there is in novelty.

I don't mean to characterize anyone here, but too often I hear raw novelty being sold as progressive. Wynton (usually) chooses to focus on traditions that we should all know better than we do, and focus necessarily limits vision. But having met the man and seen him work a rehearsal I feel confident that he respects the artists who bring good new music to the world. I don't see him accepting raw novelty as progress, however.

So, again, what does "progress" mean to you in the jazz context? What distinguishes progress from simple diversion?

Can you expand on the notion of "progressive novelty jazz music" vs. "loyalist jazz music", especially "raw novelty being sold as progressive?" I referenced Wynton so I want to know more about your thought process regarding this. By the way, I saw Wynton and Lincoln Center play the entire Love Supreme album. I was half impressed and found it to be novel. The band killed it but the concept was meh. I got the tickets for free so I went not ever giving up an opportunity to go to symphony hall here in Chicago. Is that the sort of thing you're talking about when you talk about "raw novelty being sold as progressive?"

 

[PauFerro]

I wasn't really trying make jazz "progressive" with the opening post (and I realize no one is targeting my post as controversial or wrong either).

For me, I am looking for some fresh material that reflects modern times and current thinking, even if it is reminiscent of the past. Also, something different than the tunes we normally do from the real book. Just the fact that its been composed by the current generation of players is desireable.

Related to this is the Original Compositions Real Book idea -- the motive for that is that part of me would like to also give the local musician a voice in history -- so their music doesn't die with them. This is because I work with so many talented musicians who have written great stuff I enjoy playing. And since bebop, and the other jazz styles up to the 70's, there have been other styles out there like Smooth Jazz, which was very popular, yet that music is largely unpublished except in limited run songbooks. There is the contemporary jazz style (very elusive to me, but seems to be less rocky and more complex that smooth jazz, like Pat Metheny's work, or the YellowJackets). It would be nice to see all of these styles "canonized" and made accessible to current local players. Music like the Ballad Steve posted earlier. To me, it stands with other quality tunes in the real book and is one I would enjoy playing.

I played with another top-of-the scene player last night at a private party. He has a music degree and is quite an amazing player. I asked if he would support a project like the Original Compositions Real Book -- giving up print royalties in that specific book, as well as public performance rights for performances to less than 500 people. But not the recording rights/royalties. This would be in hopes of "immortalizing" his music and also generating the potential for mechanical recording royalties, since those would not be given up.

Another consideration -- there is a general consensus that Jazz is dying. With an open mind, a book of new music could lead to disseminating innovative approaches and styles in jazz and keeping it alive, particularly with compositions from younger players.

I have some vacation coming up, and considering kicking this off with an Original Compositions Night at a local club. Having a panel there to give feedback to the artists on the songs, as well as musicianship. With voting on which songs should be considered by a jury panel for inclusion in the book. All pending a visit to an entertainment lawyer....let us hope I have the health and wherewithal to pull it off.

Here is an example of something that seems more recent that would be something I think could be considered...

 

[Sam Sherry]

So, again, what does "progress" mean to you in the jazz context? What distinguishes progress from simple diversion?

Steve, thanks for your articulate post. I don't see things your way but acknowledge your passion and erudition. A couple of points:

Herbie Hancock put it succinctly: "Risk is what moves all of us forward. If you're playing in your comfort zone, that ain't jazz."

Implicit in Mr. Hancock's statement is the point that moving forward is a positive value in jazz. For most of jazz' history that was assumed. The fundamental attitude was that personal vision was a component of artistic expression in jazz (and I hope that is still true). The corollary was that expanding the repertoire, either by writing or by integrating different pieces, was an integral part of a personal vision. Today that is less so. For me, that's a diminishment.

The Standard Canon can be performed very much in the moment, and a brand-new piece can be hacked and foisted upon those unlucky enough to be within range. But if somebody makes the effort to expand their range, and so the range of the music in general, I doff my cap.

 

[Drgonzonm]

I believe @PaulFerro, has it right, put together a new book, I like his model, I asked if he would support a project like the Original Compositions Real Book -- giving up print royalties in that specific book, as well as public performance rights for performances to less than 500 people. But not the recording rights/royalties. I would also add, no print royalties, for established schools that teach Jazz. I would look at printing the lead sheets on Acid Paper, almost newspaper stock.
If the tunes are out there, and published, I believe they will be come standard. Probably need a website, I could see something like the International Bass site.

 

[Jason Hollar]

I sure hope there aren't too many new standards - I'm still trying to learn all the old ones!

 

[Jason Hollar]

I got a new iPad last year and have been updating my pdf catalogue. I figure I have around 2500 +/- tunes at the ready - with preference given to the more recent sher & hal Leonard editions - especially one-page charts for ease of reference. I own most all of the physical books as well.

I think we're seeing a lot of new standards emerging actually - especially with the PMJB videos and subsequent band tours. I think it's cool that young musicians are playing modern songs in a "vintage" style. I think it's also pretty "novel" so not sure how much staying power the movement will have. It's not my favorite stuff - but the young cats playing it sound legit.

 

[PauFerro]

I sure hope there aren't too many new standards - I'm still trying to learn all the old ones!

I agree there is still a lot of old stuff to learn....but for me the reason for an Original Compositions Real Book is to fill a void of written music to learn. It's to get around BMI and ASCAPPing where local musicians get shut out of venues because these artists groups are requiring royalty payments for all that existing music from venue owners. The model I've proposed makes the book legal, so smaller venues can have live music but not pay anything. This opens up the market for jazz. And as I said earlier, draws on the scads unpublished, quality material that will never get published otherwise. Immortalizing the local musician's soul, so to speak (to the extent the music gets picked up and accepted by local musicians). There is intrinsic value in hearing your music played by other musicians....

I believe @PaulFerro, has it right, put together a new book, I like his model, I asked if he would support a project like the Original Compositions Real Book -- giving up print royalties in that specific book, as well as public performance rights for performances to less than 500 people. But not the recording rights/royalties. I would also add, no print royalties, for established schools that teach Jazz. I would look at printing the lead sheets on Acid Paper, almost newspaper stock.

If the tunes are out there, and published, I believe they will be come standard. Probably need a website, I could see something like the International Bass site.

I would like there to be no print royalties for ANYONE.Even if for-profit publishing houses who pick it up and start using pieces of it in their books, or the whole thing, I wouldn't care because they are contributing to the dissemination of local musicians' original music. And also building a book of standards that can be performed royalty free in the typical situations local musicians find themselves. That is the goal of this labor of love project.

I'm wondering, as a local musician, what would be the maximum crowd size you would allow before you wanted public performance royalties? I asked a couple musicians and they thought 500 or so. 1000 was too much for them....

 

[Don Kasper]

It's to get around BMI and ASCAPPing where local musicians get shut out of venues because these artists groups are requiring royalty payments for all that existing music from venue owners.

1. Are BMI/ASCAP royalty payments required ONLY when the printed (and/or published) written music is being used/viewed by the performers at a live performance? Is playing from memory exempt?
How about if the composition Title is never mentioned at a performance? How can it be proven in a court of Law that a tune was played? (This may be the Mother of All Rabbit Holes.)
2. I've been playing live gigs for 45+ years and have never had any BMI/ASCAP contact before/during/after a gig. Is this a "thing", nowadays in certain locales?
3. Yikes!
4. Talk to me like I'm Stupid...
Thanks for your time and interest.

 

[Drgonzonm]

I would like there to be no print royalties for ANYONE.Even if for-profit publishing houses who pick it up and start using pieces of it in their books, or the whole thing, I wouldn't care because they are contributing to the dissemination of local musicians' original music. And also building a book of standards that can be performed royalty free in the typical situations local musicians find themselves. That is the goal of this labor of love project.

I'm wondering, as a local musician, what would be the maximum crowd size you would allow before you wanted public performance royalties? I asked a couple musicians and they thought 500 or so. 1000 was too much for them....[/QUOTE]
Could I suggest a new thread, possibly with voting, I would suggest 250 seats.