The Steel Guitar Forum

Jim, if your dog has been to obedience school, it's classical. If he is drinkin' and cheatin', it's country. If he chews up your banjo, it's bluegrass. If he's a young pooch beginning to chase the bitches, it's rock'n'roll. If he eats your stash, it's jazz. If he bites somebody and gets picked up and thrown in the pound, it's hip-hop. If he gets sick and dies, it's blues.

One last thing I forgot. Michael Jordan was really a baseball player.

don't delete nuthin' Jimbeaux - this is a fun & good thread

Django also loved fishin'
so much that he would disappear for days & not make the gigs
how do you add that into yer formula Bill ?

Vive le Jazz Hot !

Explanation of Jazz by Yogi Berra;
Yogi: I can't, but I will. 90% of all jazz is half improvisation. The
other half is the part people play while others are playing something they
never played with anyone who played that part. So if you play the wrong
part, its right. If you play the right part, it might be right if you play
it wrong enough. But if you play it too right, it's wrong.

Interviewer: I don't understand.

Yogi: Anyone who understands jazz knows that you can't understand it. It's
too complicated. That's what¹s so simple about it.

Interviewer: Do you understand it?

Yogi: No. That's why I can explain it. If I understood it, I wouldn¹t know
anything about it.

Interviewer: Are there any great jazz player alive today?

Yogi: No. All the great jazz player alive today are dead. Except for the
ones that are still alive. But so many of them are dead, that the ones that
are still alive are dying to be like the ones that are dead. Some would
kill for it.

Interviewer: What is syncopation?

Yogi: That's when the note that you should hear now happens either before or after you hear it. In jazz, you don¹t hear notes when they
happen because that would be some other type of music. Other types of music can be jazz,
but only if they're the same as something different from those other kinds.

Interviewer: Now I really don't understand.

Yogi: I haven't taught you enough for you to not understand jazz that well.

CrowBear Schmitt wrote:don't delete nuthin' Jimbeaux - this is a fun & good thread

Django also loved fishin'
so much that he would disappear for days & not make the gigs
how do you add that into yer formula Bill ?

Vive le Jazz Hot !

I just got back from fishing in my neighborhood lake...therefore I am Django, but I smell like fish.

Here is a link to a bass I caught there a few weeks ago. http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=145477

Yogi!!!!! NY Yankees jersey number 8. When I was a kid in the 50s he was a giant to us young catchers!!

At the risk of appearing to teach my American cousins to suck eggs....

Labeling might be seen as pointless but I think it is necessary if you want to discuss music.

What is jazz? What is “Rock”, “Country” or “Heavy Metal”? These genres occur over time and have evolved greatly so these terms are only of limited value. “When was jazz really jazz?” is probably the question.(smile)

So what are the essential elements of jazz? Harmony? That is hard to pin down when you compare the harmony of early New Orleans jazz to Bebop, fusion and avant gard. It might be true to say that the harmony of jazz is always (mostly?) more complex than the prevailing pop music of the time. Therefore Rice is not a jazzer.

The blues has been an important element of jazz. Blues was there at the start in what was essentially Black American music and continued to make up a large part of the Jazz repertoire up to fusion and avant gard of the 60s and seventies. Blue notes and blues phrasing are prevalent everywhere in jazz though you could find some corners like the European sounds of Reinhart or in Latin music where they are scarce. Bluegrass definitely includes blues forms, phrasing and tonality. Therefore Rice is plays jazz!

Improvisation is an essential element of jazz whether it is the group improvisation of New Orleans, the curt solos of the big band “pop jazz” musicians, the extended melodic journeys of Gillespie and Parker in the bebop era and beyond or the wholesale improvisations of everything, melody, harmonic structure, rhythm and form that can be found in the music of avant gard musicians such as Ornette Coleman or Cecil Taylor. Tony Rice certainly fits in here.

One key element that is often overlooked is rhythm. Swing rhythm is generally considered a part of most jazz styles but “Swing” is much more than that. Winton Marsalis in the Ken Burns documentary series “Jazz”, credits Louis Armstrong with being the originator of “modern time”. It is the ability to play against a strong beat with flexibility and control so that phrases float above and around the fixed pulse. The example given is of Armstrong’s (1926?) recording of West End Blues. It is interesting to contrast this with 500 miles an hour of unbroken 8ths as being jazz. One can find the same rhythmic concept appearing in other genres such as metal, bluegrass and fusion. “Willy waving” my wife calls it. If music is communication you can stand only so much of people talking at you rapidly without drawing a breath.

Tony Rice playing jazz? Who cares? But it is obvious by his playing that he knows what jazz is.

It is my privilege to teach at music at a technical college here in beautiful South Australia where the students are mostly young adult musicians. I teach a course in contemporary music history as part of this gig and run a little blog of my notes with Youtube videos that support it at http://cert4history.blogspot.com. Feel free to visit and inform me and my students of things that we have missed.

It is important to distinguish real jazz from unreal jazz.

Well Guy C, thank yer wife for me
it'll be " Willy wavin' " fer me from now on
Jazz is just too blazé

Ken Burns documentary on Armstrong http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HxQGSmi5O6s

I just went back and listened to those Tony Rice tracks again and they still don't sound like jazz to me. They sound like long strings of 16th notes following a progression of major and minor chords with almost no dynamics. With that instrumentation, it sounds more like bluegrass to me.

Compare to Djanjo Reinhardt, for example. It's a different way of thinking.

Here's Tony playing "My Favorite Things". It's a bluegrass festival, but except for the instrumentation, I see much more connection to jazz and popular music than bluegrass: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9499oUc54w

Here's a partial clip of Tony playing Django's "Swing 42" on NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=13680119

Tony played countless European jazz tunes with Grisman while he was a part of that band in the 70s - Swing 51, Minor Swing, Nuages, and a lot of music that drew heavily from this. Just this first Grisman CD gives an idea - http://www.amazon.com/David-Grisman-Qui ... B00000333S - and there's plenty more if you look for it.

It's definitely a different musical thread than modern American mainstream jazz. If it's jazz, it's clearly also an older style. But even the stuff on Dave's original post falls pretty far out of what most people consider "bluegrass". Is someone playing big-band swing playing jazz? How about traditional (i.e., Dixieland) jazz? Is a C6 PSG player playing 30s and 40s swing playing jazz? Is the later "fusion" stuff by people like Pat Metheny jazz? One could go on. I guess it depends on whether you want to think of any of these as jazz or not. But I think the term "jazz" covers a pretty wide range of styles.

On Ken Burns - I hardly think he is the final authority on jazz, nor is Wynton Marsalis. My sense is that they have a very narrow view on what constitutes "real jazz". IMHO, and I realize that is their privilege.

You can call what Grisman and Rice helped pioneer whatever you want. The name "Newgrass" has stuck to some extent, but I think the connection to jazz is pretty obvious. Like many styles, it mixes elements of jazz, bluegrass, blues, folk, popular music, and probably others. The difficulties in classifying music have more to do with the inability to cubbyhole musical concepts using human language than any intrinsic issues with the music. IMHO again.

There is also the issue of culture. I suppose some people don't consider any of this jazz because it's disconnected with the culture of mainstream African-American jazz. That's fine, but I think it should be clearly understood that some people aren't gonna look at it like that.

For practical purposes, there is a significant group of musicians and listeners who see a strong connection of musicians like Grisman, Rice, Anger, and others to earlier European jazz, and consider it, at least partly, a musical thread of jazz. Rather than have a contest over it, I think it's better to just agree to disagree. I think it's fine to label, but it's purely of academic interest to me (remember that I'm an academician, so I don't consider that irrelevant - but my primary musical interests lie elsewhere).

All my opinions, of course.

Dave, I find your posts entirely too coherent.

Re: Dave's comment on Ken Burns -- I am indebted to a well-known Canadian jazz historian (who will remain unnamed so he does not get into trouble) for the term "Kenny B".

You can call what Grisman and Rice helped pioneer whatever you want. The name "Newgrass" has stuck to some extent, but I think the connection to jazz is pretty obvious.

Just a tangential comment: The term "Newgrass" has perhaps been applied to music like the first David Grisman Quintet album (I love that album), but it has also, and more often, I think, been applied to music like Alison Krauss and Union Station, and even a lot of the Seldom Scene, which departs from the melodic and harmonic conventions of traditional Bluegrass while using the same instrumentation, but can't be said to contain "jazz" elements, by, I think, anyone's definition.

When Tony Rice was younger he played with Stephane Grapelli
who singled him out as a rising star.

He can play with most anybody he wants to and fit in with the band.
He is a musican, who can play jazz,
among many other styles.

I am indebted to a well-known Canadian jazz historian (who will remain unnamed so he does not get into trouble) for the term "Kenny B".

... but it has also, and more often, I think, been applied to music like Alison Krauss and Union Station, ... but can't be said to contain "jazz" elements, by, I think, anyone's definition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqdlM1oAIkA - I think Allison holds her own in lots of areas. The term newgrass cuts a wide swath also - some of it is more jazz-inflected and some not so much. It's just another language-induced box.

I have no problem with this type of categorization, as long as it's not taken too seriously. Humans seem to like to cubbyhole everything - I guess it makes it easier to work on auto-pilot and avoid thinking, which seems to be a hallmark of the species. Being able to run on auto-pilot is critical for a lot of ordinary activities - for example, we couldn't walk if we had to "think it through" every time. But these boxes are purely out of practical convenience - no other real significance should be ascribed. When a musician violates a box's boundaries, the problem is not with the musician, but with the box.

My opinions, as always.

Dave Mudgett wrote:When a musician violates a box's boundaries, the problem is not with the musician, but with the box.

To some, the box is more important than what it contains. More blood has been shed over arguments about what something is and what something ain't because people want to cling to old boundaries.

My comments were based solely on the 3 sound clips that were referenced in the original post. Those clips sound like progressive bluegrass to me. If they are not representative of Tony Rice's larger body of work, then I was very wrong. He may indeed be able to play a wide variety of styles, including jazz. Nothing wrong with that.

I see it this way.

Creativity happens when musicians are able to organize their preference of notes, rhythms, and harmonic structures in a style that brands them as unique within any genre. For this very reason, musical art forms change, or evolve, depending on your point of view, largely due to the massive influence these creative musicians have on others. Now the inspired musicians decide to experiment the same way by putting their own spin on the music they love to play. It is this never ending cycle of creative exploration that leads to musical originality that causes yesterdays definitions to be invalid when applied to todays musicians. I'll bet our future musicians will feel just as restricted by any definitions/stereotypes that are attached to what's going on today from a purists point of view.

Purists seem to be the only ones who care about definitions? I see definitions as stereotypes. Stereotypes are the walls likeminded musicians dream of knocking down.

When I heard Tony play on these clips, Its not Django, its not Monroe, its Tony Rice doing his thing. To say that Tony is a Bluegrass or Jazz musician is understating his musical prowess on the acoustic guitar. The only label I put on Tony or Dave is that they are masters of acoustic music.

Paul

Jazz Guitar? What makes it jazz?

Someone once asked Satchmo the same question (What makes it jazz?).

His answer?

"Man, if you have to ask, you'll never know."

So, we're now basically back to my original post about pornography, having come full circle. Is that when we know the thread is all washed up?

Bill Hatcher, I play Jazz on my Gibson Es 175 a '57 model. I used to use flat wounds. I switched to semi rounds. Is that not right?

Don Drummer wrote:Bill Hatcher, I play Jazz on my Gibson Es 175 a '57 model. I used to use flat wounds. I switched to semi rounds. Is that not right?

That would be half right of course.

My brief exsposure playing with dyed in the wool jazz musicians from NYC who at sometime lived or still live in Lewisburg WV. reveals that they all considered Lennie Tristano not a Jazz musician. Hope this helps. Don D.

Happy to disagree down here in beautiful South Australia where we are just coming into the best time of the year.. stone fruit season. not a argumentative bone in the body with a mouth full of nectarine.

This has been an interesting thread and as usual, informative but I can't let the casual Ken Burns, Kenny B and Winton Marsalis asides go. Not only is Marsalis an articulate musician, his breadth of knowledge and styles makes his contributions invaluable.

As for Kenny B, he makes documentaries for public consumption. They are entertainment as well being informative but do they really suffer for it? He is a story teller, and a good one. Sure, the editorial choices he makes must color the story. But what great research. I don't think a huge project like "Jazz" is going to get made without the consideration of the widest audience possible. For my own taste I would rather not have had so much editorial comment over the music.

Is Garry Giddins (the talking head in the West End Blues video above) also being dissed? Let's throw in Leonard Feather and why not Gunther Schueller as well.

Music documentaries often feature artists or sidemen who have had their time in the sun and from whom the spotlight has moved on. Happy for the attention, they sometimes ramble on about all sorts of theories and ideas which seem far from the truth. For example I am over the bitterness of Noel Redding who seems to crop up anytime anyone mentions Hendrix. I think he should be grateful that Hendrix agreed to include "She's So Fine"on Axis: Bold As Love. It's a dog of a song on a masterpiece of rock. Imagine if Hendrix had teamed up with Jack Bruce instead of Noel! Some programs are more indulgent of artists than others but I didn't find Burns overly so.

I don't think that Burns a final authority but it is really his research that is important to me. It is the scope of "Jazz" that was admirable as much as anything. In my personal musical journey I had not given sufficient credit to Armstrong. I had heard him in the context of 50's jazz only, nothing outstanding in that company but Burns' program caused me to reevaluate, to listen to the early music and appreciate the genius. No doubt there are other musicians by whom Armstrong was influenced. Duke Ellington seemed like a whole genre in himself. The Cotton Club music is amazing except for "Indian Love Song" which you can keep.


Eh..... coherence...... overrated!