The Steel Guitar Forum

I may get crucified for this, but I've struggled with this subject for awhile. Probably because I haven't taken the time to immerse myself into the subject. The recent posts about Atkins/Benson and Clark/Pass is what brought this subject back to my mind again.

I see references, here and elsewhere, to what "is" jazz and more often what is "not"... Truthfully I don't know. I do know who most of the legendary jazz guitarists are and have alot of them in my music collection. I also have selections of artists from other genres that are performing what I would call jazz interpretations of some originals as well as standards. Here's where the confusion comes for me. Why do I think it sounds like jazz when jazz purists listen to it and blow it off as a poor attempt. One example would be the legendary bluegrass flatpicking great Tony Rice. Alot of what he plays sounds very jazz influenced to me but experienced jazz players are way less than impressed. Here are a couple of Tony's albums that comes to mind (Acoustics and Backwaters). Listen to tracks 4, 5 and 8 on the first link (Acoustics).

http://www.amazon.com/Acoustics-Tony-Ri ... gy_m_img_b

http://www.amazon.com/Backwaters-Tony-R ... 606&sr=1-7

Would some of you experienced jazz experts listen to some of the clips in the links and explain why this is "not" jazz? I sincerely want to know what differentiates what Tony is doing versus what a "real" jazz player would be doing. I'm sure some of it has to do with chords, comping, bass lines, scales, etc. But, what in Tony's improvisations makes his playing something less than "real" jazz?

I appreciate any input you're willing to give.

Respectfully,
dave burr

What's that they say about pornography...?

I'm not going here ....

What do they say about pornography Jimbeaux?

It's like the difference between a violin and a fiddle maybe?

What I don't hear in Tony Rice, that I do hear in most jazz, is "blue" notes. Jazz soloists tend to add notes that are outside of what the chord progression would dictate, in very deliberate directions. Arpeggios of chord substitutions - a bII7 run over a V7 chord, for example.

Part of jazz is the art of putting "wrong" notes in places that make them sound "right".

Bo Borland wrote:What do they say about pornography Jimbeaux?

It's like the difference between a violin and a fiddle maybe?

With a little bit of sax?

Very interesting question, Dave. I'm no "experienced jazz expert," but I have listened to it all my life, and play some jazz on piano, sax and pedal steel. I also presently live in a very mixed neighborhood in Philly with many hardcore jazz musicians that have played with the greats like Coltrane, Rahsan Roland Kirk, Sun Ra, Brecker, etc. here and in New York. I play and hang with some of them, and have discussed this question with them occasionally.

You can describe jazz as what it is, or what it is not. After listening to most of the samples on the two Rice albums you linked, I'd have to say his songs definitely contain all the elements of what jazz is - improv, pentatonic "blue notes," various modal scales, syncopation, etc. Even a smidgen of the jazz stuff he plays would be enough to get him kicked of the bandstand by some country and bluegrass purists who don't like jazz elements in their genre.

The jazzers I know are very comfortable in their old school roots, and that confidence makes them less judgmental. I don't think any of them would say this is not jazz. In fact some of them would be happy to play with someone like Rice, and would be happy to hear him adding bluegrass and country elements. They are fascinated by my "country" instrument, and love to hear me play country or jazz or to mix the two. There are more links between jazz and country than many people might think. Charlie Parker loved to listen to Hank Williams. And I once read an amazing story of how Ornette Coleman's bassist (whose name escapes me) played country bass on the Opry stage one night, and within a few days was backing Ornette in his mythical free jazz debut run in New York. It's a wonder he didn't die of whiplash.

Now, having said all that, there are plenty of jazz purists with firm ideas about what is not jazz. They would strongly object to the country and bluegrass licks that Rice mixes in with his jazz - it would ruin it for them. They would consider that he is basically playing country and bluegrass and just throwing in some jazz licks. There are some people that so strongly identify with the urban African-American ethnic roots of jazz that they would be offended by elements of "corny white country music" mixed in with it, and would want him kicked off the bandstand. So there are some bandstands Rice would get kicked off of either way.

It is very subjective as to whether Rice is playing country/bluegrass with jazz licks thrown in, or jazz with country/bluegrass licks thrown in. It reminds me of revealing analogy that psychologists have studied. In Africa they say white people see the zebra as a white animal with black stripes; and black people see it as a black animal with white stripes.

All American music is a mixture of different ethnic roots. Country and bluegrass contain blues and jazz elements that are not found in the pure European folk traditions from which country and bluegrass are derived. Bill Monroe is very clear that he got licks from a black musician he knew growing up. Likewise, blues and jazz contain European elements not found in the pre-colonial African music the slaves brought over with them. These are uniquely American hybrids.

In the vast continuum that runs between the whitest country/bluegrass and the blackest blues and jazz, Rice is way toward the center, and will not be liked by people who want to live only at one of the extreme ends of the continuum. Also, he does something that is a bit unique. Instead of smoothly blending jazz and country in the center, sort of graying them together, he sticks pure chunks from either end of the continuum right next to each other from phrase to phrase. It's like if the continuum is a long line, he doesn't just slide over to the center of the line. Rather he grabs both ends and bends them around to bump into each other. That is a bit jarring, and even more likely to stir up people at the extremes. He makes no pretense of blending in that respect.

These juxtaposed pure chunks to me seem different than some of the other jazz I hear country musicians play. They play jazz with a sort of country accent that they may not be aware of, but that comes through to longtime pure jazz musicians. It is a little too twangy and - what's the word - stilted, simplified, hackneyed, cliched? It doesn't always have the tonal texture and depth of rhythmic and harmonic complexity, improvisation and authenticity that experienced hardcore jazzers want to hear. And related to that, they may play a very dated bebop style, without the more recent elements of fusion, avant garde and free jazz. In other words, they come across as country musicians attempting to play jazz, not experienced jazzers that can also play country. This of course cuts both ways. Hardcore country fans can hear when rock, jazz or classical musicians attempt to play country. These guys from other genres may think it sounds country to them, but it might not to a longtime country musician or fan.

This is a pretty complicated subject, and so much of it is in the ear of the beholder. Bottom line to me - does Rice play jazz? Yes. Does he play some stuff that ain't jazz? Yes, sometimes in the next phrase.

This is a bluegrass player playing jazz influenced licks in a bluegrass setting.....what is so confusing about that.

Bo Borland wrote:What do they say about pornography Jimbeaux?

Well, 'they' say: I can't tell you what it is, but I sure know it when I see it!

This actually is paraphrased from an actual judge in an actual trial several years ago.

Jim's quote is from Supreme court Justice Potter Stewart in 1964: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

I can no more come up with absolute boundaries for "real jazz" than I can come up with absolute boundaries for "real country", "real blues", or "real anything else".

For a long time, there has been something of a schism between the original musicological thread of American jazz and the distinct thread opened up in Europe in the 1930s by people like Django Reinhardt and Stephane Grapelli. If you open up the definition of "real jazz" to include the latter, I think it's pretty hard to argue that people like Tony Rice and David Grisman don't ever play "real jazz".

I personally view them all as people who do (or did), in fact, play jazz at times, but not all the time - but that line is musically quite different. In the end, I don't think it matters a hill of beans whether one calls Django or Rice jazz, but a lot of people do.

I have to say that, personally, I'm more moved by the blues-drenched American jazz tradition. To me, jazz that doesn't have at least a strong dose of greasy blues in its skeleton tends to feel pretty cerebral to me. That said, I do really love Django and Tony, but they are a very different experience for me, as compared to, for example, Wes Montgomery, Grant Green, Barney Kessel, Kenny Burrell, Joe Pass, Bird, Monk, Dexter Gordon, Charlie Christian, and others more in that tradition.

Well, this is refreshing, in a way! We can hash over what is or isn't "jazz" as a break from the more frequent hashing-over on this Forum of what is or isn't "country".

Jazz artists seem to have a deep-seated and spiritual fear of ever playing a melody.

Mickey Lawson wrote:Jazz artists seem to have a deep-seated and spiritual fear of ever playing a melody.

You obviously do not know much about jazz to make a statement like this.

Bill Hatcher wrote:

Mickey Lawson wrote:Jazz artists seem to have a deep-seated and spiritual fear of ever playing a melody.

You obviously do not know much about jazz to make a statement like this.

Or he's funny.

P Gleespen wrote:

Bill Hatcher wrote:

Mickey Lawson wrote:Jazz artists seem to have a deep-seated and spiritual fear of ever playing a melody.

You obviously do not know much about jazz to make a statement like this.

Or he's funny.

Or he does not know that on the web you need to ID your humor with some manner of symbol so folks will know you are joking around. Otherwise statements are taken at face value.

So, you mean he might just be ignorant then?

(Please note winking symbol above.)

I am still trying to figure out the "spiritual fear" of playing melodies while playing jazz.

I had a jazz gig yesterday for a staff Christmas party at a church. I guess I should have been VERRRRYYYYY afraid!! oooo000000000oooooooooo!

This guy obviously has no Paul Desmond in his collection.

Thanks for the input. Especially David Doggett. Your post got me from muddy to murky.

Dave.

Why is this even murky to you???

IT IS A BLUEGRASS GROUP. What ever they play no matter if they play Bach is still bluegrass. So if Rice plays some copied jazz riffs from some jazz records he has been listening to, this is not REAL jazz. It is still bluegrass. The only way this could work is if the Modern Jazz Quartet played a bluegrass song with a bluegrass beat. Then you would have REAL jazz musicians playing REAL jazz licks in a bluegrass tune.

Rice is just playing some jazzish licks in an bluegrass setting.

Until I see a youtube video of Rice with a Gibson L5 electric guitar with flatwounds and some brothers in the rhythm section playing "Giant Steps" 500 miles an hour then he is still a grasser.

Louis Armstrong (I believe he has some jazz credibility) is alleged to have said "They's two kinds of music: the bad kind and the good kind. I play the good kind."

All of these divisions and classifications are pretty arbitrary, and sometimes quite counterproductive. Whatever you call Rice's deviation from the HillBilly mainstream, I think it certainly falls into "the good kind."

KP

Bill - was the Quintette du Hot Club de France jazz, or not?

To me, if it was, then how are Tony Rice and/or David Grisman playing "Nuages", "Swing 42" - or other music strongly influenced by that type of thing - not jazz? If you argue it's not, then there's nothing to discuss - I disagree, but that's OK, since I at least understand where you're coming from.

Until I see a youtube video of Rice with a Gibson L5 electric guitar with flatwounds and some brothers in the rhythm section playing "Giant Steps" 500 miles an hour then he is still a grasser.

The fact that Rice, Grisman, and others like this use bluegrass-style instrumentation has no relationship to the music style, as far as I'm concerned. I think it's possible to play "real jazz guitar" on a guitar different from an L-5CE with flatwound strings. And I'm definitely not sure what "some brothers in the rhythm section" have to do with it. I have never believed that the ability to play jazz or blues was inherited, but learned.

To me - if MJQ seriously played a bluegrass song with a bluegrass beat, it might or might not be bluegrass, but do you argue that they couldn't play bluegrass if they decided they wanted to?

IMO, these hard stylistic boxes are traps.

btw, I'm know your earlier "Dave" comment wasn't directed at me, but I imagine the next one will be.

BTW - if you have to play jazz guitar on an L-5CE with flatwounds, I guess that completely eliminates the possibility of playing it on a pedal steel guitar, which we all know is a "real country" instrument - eh?

Bill Hatcher wrote:...if Rice plays some copied jazz riffs from some jazz records he has been listening to, this is not REAL jazz. It is still bluegrass. The only way this could work is if the Modern Jazz Quartet played a bluegrass song with a bluegrass beat. Then you would have REAL jazz musicians playing REAL jazz licks in a bluegrass tune...

Until I see a youtube video of Rice with a Gibson L5 electric guitar with flatwounds and some brothers in the rhythm section playing "Giant Steps" 500 miles an hour then he is still a grasser.

Ok, so Bill's post raises the kinds of questions that really need to be addressed in order to deal with the question at hand. In particular:

a) Since probably all jazz musicians (including the MJQ) started out by "copying some jazz riffs from some jazz records they'd been listening to" until at some point people like Bill would consider them "REAL" jazz musicians, where is the border? What constitutes the transition point? When does 'copying' (plus mixing, inverting, modifying, etc.) become 'real' jazz?

b) Does "Real Jazz" have to be played on conventional instruments (Gibson L5, saxophones, trumpets, piano, bass, drums, etc.) If so, could any steel guitarist ever qualify, regardless of what they play? (There are definitely folks out there who take this view)

c) Do you have to be able to cut 'Giant Steps' or 'All the Things You Are' at 300 bpm in order to be considered to be playing 'jazz'? When Coltrane slowed down Giant Steps and turned it into 'Central Park West' was he no longer playing jazz?

d) I'm not gonna touch the part about there needing to be some 'bruthas' in the rhythm section...

e) Do you have to have suffered to play Da Blues? How much suffering is required, and exactly what type? Did your woman have to leave you, or is it enough if your dog died?

f) I think I'm persuading myself that the whole conversation is pointless and I'm tempted to delete this whole post. Perhaps I still will...

Dave Mudgett wrote:Bill - was the Quintette du Hot Club de France jazz, or not?

They had a fiddle.....it must be bluegrass.
Also Django started out playing banjo...therefore it was a REAL bluegrass group because Django was really a banjo player in disguise. The acoustic bass had no pickup..therefore the group was a hardcore bluegrass group. They spoke French, therefore they did not bathe too much...so it was a smelly hardcore bluegrass group. Some porn is hardcore. Therefore they were a smelly hardcore porn disguised bluegrass group wanting to be jazz musicians.

I have tied in all facets of this thread and I am finished with it. Scoodleybobadoobop!