 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2003-07-14 07:54
I have a question about jazz music... Personally, I can't stand jazz music very much, but as an informed musician (and listener) I'd like to expand my horizions and find some jazz that I can enjoy.... I sorta have two questions?
There are lots of different styles of music that I would lump into the jazz category, although I could be wrong... Styles like dixieland, big band, blues, "jazz" combo... can all of these legitimately be placed under the hood of "jazz" or is there a difference I should be aware of?
My second question (and the more insulting of the two, probably) is this. In my experience listening to jazz music, I've found it to be harmonic flat (by flat I mean a lack of harmonic direction... it just sorta flounders for a while then the song ends...) Granted, most of the "jazz" bands I've heard are high school or college jazz combos, so I'm probably not getting the cream of the crop (no offense to them, of course). While this probably sounds stupid, is it supposed to sound that way, or am I just missing something? Because of this, I find jazz very hard to appreciate. I can appreciate a virtuosic jazz performance simply because a performer plays well, but I find the music itself mind-numbing - the lack of resolution is like an itch that never gets scratched for me... It drives me INSANE!!! (again, only of the jazz I've heard, so I could just not have heard the "good" stuff yet, and you can tell me what it is and change my mind!). I don't mean to be insulting, so don't take offense jazz-enthusiasts. It's just that before I totally dismiss jazz music for good, I'd like to make sure I'm giving it a fair chance! Thanks
don hite - theclarinetist@yahoo.com
PS - speaking of unresolved harmonies, I'm learning Bucolique right now, and the last chord infuriates me! (The rest is great enough to ignore it though) - just thought I'd share that to prove I'm not as biased towards classical music as one might think = )
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Pinner
Date: 2003-07-14 08:08
I think one of the best ways to understand the history of the Jazz genre is to follow the historical line. Traditional jazz has its roots in both the blues and brass band forms and evolved out of the early 1900's, swing took over sometime in the late 20's and is more dance based but using aspects, rhythmic and harmonic, of its forerunner. Bebop and cool probably began as a rebellion against the sanitised swing style. The term dixieland probably came about to describe traditional jazz played by the revival bands from the late 50's and 60's. Jazz is of course evolutionary, in other words the style is in a constant state of flux. The modern jazz of 2003 is different to the modern jazz of 1950. It is so evolutioary that every time a player improvises he or she has added to the mix. I would suggest some reading on the history and an open mind. If you are trying to pick our minds for the purpose of a school assignment please acknowledge your sources as plagiarism off this board has been known to occur.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2003-07-14 08:14
I'm a college junior studying Sociologly/Criminology, so jazz is not on my academic agenda (at least as far as school is concerned). I'm just curious (as a clarinetist/music enthusiast). I'll look into the historical relevance though... Thanks!
DH
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: msloss
Date: 2003-07-14 12:59
Jazz is a big tent with a lot of substyles under it. Grab a few essential CDs from a few different styles and periods (Louis Armstrong, Glen Miller, Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, Benny Carter, John Coltrane, Art Farmer, etc.) and just listen. You will find the melodic, harmonic and rhythmic waters quite deep. Don't judge the form on the basis of a school band any more than you would draw conclusions on classical music based on a fiddler scritching out Mozart on a subway platform. Consult the masters and then decide.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2003-07-14 13:01
Hi,
Why not tune into KPLU http://www.kplu.org (jazz 24-7) on the web. IMHO, it is one of the very best jazz stations around. You'll get a pretty good mix of things and then when Cat or Robin Lloyd tell you what was played, you can then find if there are any things you like and go from there.
HRL
PS It sounds like you have some pretty well entrenched biases you need to work on so you can "give it a fair chance." Maybe more open ears will help you.
Post Edited (2003-07-16 13:47)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2003-07-14 13:59
Got SOME responses, didn't you, cl'ist!!? I've played a bit of good-ole 3 chord blues, Dixie, some "progressive", Bellotto et al arrangements, but I only like jazz "which goes somewhere" has definite chord structure, vs ultra modern [elevator music?] jazz, which just "wanders" [IMHO]. Find what you like and listen to it, its an art form also. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kenabbott
Date: 2003-07-14 14:28
The quick and easy way to get a thorough introduction is to get a copy of the "Smithsonian Collection of Classic Jazz." It is a five CD collection with a short book included. It gives a smattering of everything, placing each piece in its historical context.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2003-07-14 14:52
Don,
You asked: "can all of these legitimately be placed under the hood of "jazz", or is there a difference I should be aware of?" The dictionary describes jazz as syncopated music. By that definition, I think the styles in the list you gave would all come under the general umbrella of "jazz". The differences will become obvious as you listen to the different styles.
Music, most people would readily agree, is a matter of taste. I don't like Rap (I wouldn't even call it music); I like some (but far from all) classical music; I generally like Swing, Dixieland, and Blues, but not Bebop; and while I'm cleaning my house the Rock 'n Roll "Oldies" from the '60s suit my needs. Your taste may never come to include any form of jazz; however, as was suggested above, before you write off jazz you might benefit from listening to professionals playing different sub-categories. In addition to Hank Lehrer's radio station, you might find jazz at your local library if they lend CDs.
It may also be useful to recall that jazz musicians have made the transition from jazz to classical; e.g., Artie Shaw and Benny Goodman. If there are classical musicians who have gone in the opposite direction, their names escape me, but the point is that there are highly successful musicians who consider both styles to have merit.
Hans
Post Edited (2003-07-14 16:52)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob A
Date: 2003-07-14 15:39
I have no credentials for posting here (but that has never stopped me in the past). There are two phrases that jumped out at me in these responses:
1. Hank said in part, ".. Maybe more open ears will help you....", and
2. Don Berger said, in part about Jazz"... "which goes somewhere" has definite chord structure..."
Imagine you are kicked back, enjoying some "so-called great jazz" and a cool libation. All of a sudden a theme is developing, your mind fits it together, the cords seem to flow, the music is "going somewhere." You are THERE, working through the changes--Then all of a sudden there is a mind blowing change, it still flows, it's not what YOU would have improvised--but it all fits, it's absolutely beautiful--although you still can't figure it out; And your mind screams "HOW DID HE GET THERE."
That's Jazz!
Bob A
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bobmester
Date: 2003-07-14 16:21
Last year I started on a quest to learn about jazz. I got the Ken Burns series from the library and watched that.
First, the definition of jazz is that it is improvisational music. All those types of music you mentioned fall into that category.
Second, try Dave Brubeck Quartet "Time Out". It is a great starting point in the middle of jazz history. Jazz begins with Louis Armstrong, goes through swing to bebop and to modal, free jazz, etc. today.
Benny Goodman, Paul Desmond, and Cannonball Adderly's first recording.
Can't go wrong with any of those.
Today's jazz scene includes "Standard Jazz" as well as all the funky far out stuff as well. Still lots of big bands out there as well as Diane Krall, et al.
Feel free to email me with any questions.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Croshaw
Date: 2003-07-14 16:52
I also had a tough time with jazz. I got tired of hearing a brush hitting a symble in the background and a sax player just jamming (which I suspect you hear alot in college). It wasn't until I saw the Jazz seriers by Ken Burns did I really understand where to look for the jazz I like to hear. I agree with the above post that you should start with Dave Brubecks "Time Out" CD. A rare combination of quality and commercial appeal. From there I would go to the early stuff. But watch the Jazz documentary first.
Paul
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Benni
Date: 2003-07-14 17:32
Ken Burns did a very skewed history of jazz, (I'm not even talking about the fact that he didn't cover anything past the 60's; that didn't bother me. What he did cover was skewed), but it at least presented jazz to the masses and some good CDs came out of it. The "Best of Ken Burns JAZZ" CD covers the spectrum from trad to post-bop to modern revival. If you'd like some good clarinet jazz, the Benny Goodman CD from the Burns series is great. As far as being harmonically advanced, you might like bebop, but probably the earlier stuff before it became what Paul describes in the first sentence in the previous post. Dizzy Gillespie's big band and famous small group recordings from the same time period might be a good place to start. Bix Beiderbecke (who reached his fame in the 20's) did a lot harmonically as well, using concepts that wouldn't be touched again until the 40's. His piano compositions are jazz-like, but almost impressionistic.
Some of what you dislike about jazz currently, the "flatness" you describe, could be due to the arrangements you've heard. School jazz band arrangements tend to be boiled-down versions of the better big band ones. There's lots of great arrangers out there, so maybe once you find a sub-genre of jazz or two you'd like to focus on, myself and the other jazz fans on here can help you with some more specific suggestions!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2003-07-14 23:39
It sounds like you may have been listening to Kenny G, the richest sax player in the world!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Henry
Date: 2003-07-14 23:52
Hi Clarinetist: Since noone has yet mentioned him, may I suggest Stan Kenton's big band of the 50's. There you'll find harmonic splendor! Truly gorgeous arrangements and magnificent improvised solos, by the likes of Lee Konitz and Conte Candoli. I recently picked up some CDs and I am (again) enthralled by the sound of it all! My favorite is a CD entitled "Portraits on Standards", Capitol 7243 5 31571 2 8. Try it; you'll like it (I hope and trust!).
Henry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob A
Date: 2003-07-15 01:05
Henry,
Are you sure about your Kenton dates? I recall when he used to play the Pasadena Civic and my brother and I used to go listen. That was in '40-41, not 50 and then when my brother went into the Navy (late 41) as a musician he was stationed with some of the musicians from Kenton's and other Big Bands busting up to go into the service. I went into the Navy in '42 and by then I thought Kenton's band had already dispersed. Any way, his "St. James Infirmary" still gives me chills.
Bob A
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2003-07-15 01:44
Bob A,
My recollection of the great Kenton bands of the 50s (yes, there were some good 1940s bands as well) were as Henry describes. I saw Kenton and many bands on tour at Cedar Point and Crystal Beach in Northern Ohio in the mid-1950s.
And then Kenton continued into the 1970s as well. A great leader with terrific sidemen plus amazing arrangments.
HRL
PS a good Kenton website at
http://www.52ndstreet.com/kenton/kenton.htm
Post Edited (2003-07-15 02:05)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2003-07-15 01:52
Jazz - I too don't like a lot of jazz (then again I don't like a lot of "classical" music either) ... but I do like some of the more modern jazz I've heard with interesting combinations of instruments. I will be more open minded and explore some more jazz in the future and get to know it better. Our national broadcaster devotes a couple of hours a week (or more) to Jazz (Jazz Perspectives) and I do listen to this when I think about it.
I liked hearing a jazz group from Melbourne recently who used a lot of tuned percussion in their ensemble (marimbas, vibraphones but not glockenspiels thank god) - at first I thought it was odd but as the improvisations progressed and the tonal and rhythmic deviations became more obscure I was quite saddened when the piece finished.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2003-07-15 02:09
Hi Friends Down Under,
I remember hearing the Australian Jazz Quartet in Cleveland about 1955 complete with Errol Buddle on tenor and bassoon. The group was a gas!
Also on the program were Zoot Zims and the main act was Dave Brubeck. What a night.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
