The Steel Guitar Forum

I have a question for all Forumites. On many occasions in recent months, up to and including that last few days, I have come across the sentiment that more seel players seem to prefer playing modern jazz than what I call traditional jazz, meaning the Standards. I find it puzzling because one of the commonalities of steel players is a great love for chords and harmony. Our greatest players like Buddy Emmons and Lloyd Green always apply harmony very interestingly and creatively and it's one of the components of their musicianship that I think many of us most appreciate about them. The Standards as a group, IMO, represent the ultimate in terms of chord and harmony depth among all 20th century popular musical styles. So, why do most steel players that are into jazz choose NOT to explore them. All comments welcome.

Maybe those who can already play everything else in all possible directions needs something more challenging. I remember Terry Crisp mentioned that he used to play fusion jazz jams with other Nashville pros, probably for that reason, if I understood him right. Sorry to say I´ll never come whithin a lightyear from that level, but it´s great fun to pedal steel anyway - ain´t it?

I guess I must have missed something, because I haven't seen where most of us who play jazz have any disdain for standards. First of all, people mean different things when they say "modern jazz". To me, modern jazz is term that is most often applied to music from the bebop and post-bop era, as opposed to the swing / big band music of the thirties and early forties. Not really "modern" at all, when you think about it.

I like to play bebop and jazz standards from that era, because like you, I like the challenge of navigating through a lot of chord changes, figuring out hip voicings, and I like the swing feel. That's what I'm most comfortable with and that's the kind of player I am, primarily. Not cutting edge, by any means.

Now, on the other hand, players who are committed to a creative form of music, especially jazz players who have worked their way through years of learning standards and all that, understandably get bored with playing music from 50 years ago, and want to create something new. I mean, really, how many times in your career can you play "Stella by Starlight", or "There will Never be Another You", or any of the rest of the constantly played songs from the Real Book repetiore and keep it interesting?

I love all these tunes, but I really respect players who seek to stretch the boundaries and create new music. Having said that, however, I have to say that I pay more attention to an "outside" player if he or she does something that tells me that they have a fundamental knowledge of what they are doing harmonically.

I choose not to play those tunes because if I did, I would play them badly. The amount of time required to learn to play them well exceeds what I have available. I love hearing the pros play them, though.

------------------
<small><img align=right src="http://b0b.com/b0b.gif" width="64" height="64">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (F Diatonic), Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6), Roland Handsonic

I'm with Jerry Gleason: I'm not aware that more jazz steelers prefer "recent" styles over "standards". In fact, I suspect that the opposite is true, just because the standards are often more melodic, "listenable" and easier to get organized around. I agree, though, that once someone has become bored with standards, they might venture into other territory (e.g., fusion), such as you describe Jeff, if it falls within their musical taste to do so.

It would be interesting to know whether the players you're thinking of, Jeff, "started" their jazz playing directly in fusion/ or other "recent" styles, or worked their way through standards for years before arriving where they are now.

JEFF, if I take off on a tangent,its not intentional. Having said that...I can only speak for myself on this,but for at least 25 years of my life,I was too busy playing the music that I was getting payed to play;too busy to learn or to play those old "standards". Even during my years with Ace Cannon we made a living by staying "commercial". I guess what I'm trying to say,is, that for some us,our occupation dictated a road to travel,far different from the one we would have freely chosen. Even though I might learn a few standards,does it really benefit me to do so if I never get to play them? Instead,perhaps learning FROM them is in my best interest. There is another paradox here also. When I do drag out an old tune (whether it be Glen Miller,Dave brubeck,or Bob Wills)the reactions follow a predictable pattern:first,rejection;second,acceptance. If I announce one at a rehearsal or on stage,typical comment is,"Don't play that old stuff." After I play it anyway,they say,"Wow, that's really cool,I've never heard that before!"~~~~Does this sound familiar to anyone? Incidentally, I can't think of any type of music that I don't like,though some have to be taken in small doses. I know this is a wee bit off topic,but it needed to be said.
W.C.

Oh,and JEFF,if you call me a "seel player" again,Flipper said he would never swim up there to hear you play!
W.C.

I don't know much about theory...jazz or otherwise. That said, I have my own ideas about how to classify jazz. The "standards" that most people classify as jazz are just big-band (dance music) songs, to me...more like be-bop. Soft jazz (which I term "schmaltzy") just doesn't have enough going on for me to call it jazz. I mean, "Witchcraft" is a cool tune, but it's too slow and uncomplicated for me to think of it as jazz.

For me, jazz has to move! The old saying "jazz it up" means to make it cook! As to why so few steel players play jazz, I think that's because it's hard to do it right. IMHO, there's maybe only a dozen steelers that can do what the <u>average</u> jazz musician does. The speed, preciseness, and theory required are considerable. There's even a few famous jazz guitarsists who haven't mastered the "precise" part, yet.

(Note...the above may be just unfounded babble, but that's how I feel.)

In the late 60s, I was at a double package show in Peoria, IL. Between the afternoon and evening shows I just stayed in the theatre. About an hour and a half before the show was to open with Bill Anderson, Sonny Garrish came in and with his amp turned down, played C6th for almost an hour.
He played so many of these old standards I could never list them all. He just kept on and on and on. All I could do was sit between the curtains and listen.

Then his lead man ( Jimmy Gately ??) came in to tune up and I heard him say to Sonny: "Get it all worked out ??" Sonny said "Yeah " and never touched the C6th again that evening. I guess there's a little of those old timey things in a lot of us.

Regards, Paul

Jeff-A short answer to your post is:

I really don't know the why of it.

I do believe that what quite a few of what we now call the standards , used to be called Jazz. I was lucky enough to be playing in those days, and getting paid to play the E6 tuning.

We played Woody Herman's "Four brothers", "Early Autumn".

some others were "Jumpin with Symphony Sid", (remember that one Jeff?), "perdido", "Body and Soul", "undecided",(the horn men like to take a ride on that),

Duke Ellington"s "Take the A Train, "in my solitude", "sophisticated lady","mood indigo".

I could go on and on...these were our tunes we played every day to good crowds that usually liked to dannce. I'm glad I lived through those years.

Another good example, We played "All the things you are" slow. I have heard Hal Rugg tear into it, I would call his solo very jazzy. Great too!

I have heard Herby Wallace Play "all of Me" an old standard that we used to play.

Well he played so much jazz on it to amaze everyone.

So ,Jeff, what is Jazz? I don't know, but there is a lot of it going around....al
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Al Marcus on 04 October 2002 at 04:49 PM.]</p></FONT>

The 'non-original' bands I've played in, typically, don't do anything newer than about 1952. This music seems to get catagorized as Americana, American Song Book as well as the various Swing idioms. We also do 'novelty' songs like "At the Codfish Ball" (Shirley Temple 1935).

I don't have much interest in fusion, which seems to be more of a 'players' form rather than an audience form.

Tal Farlowe once said that he had first heard and learned all the songs he played when they were still pop music, that is before they were reharmonized. Then he heard Art Tatum and got into jazz. It seems to me that songs of that era lent themselves better for reharmonizing. Do you feel motivated to reharmonize Celine Dion recordings?<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Dave Birkett on 04 October 2002 at 11:04 PM.]</p></FONT>

I spend most all of my practice time working on standards and usually a couple gigs a week playing them. Its great stuff.
Although if I started worrying about what notes are thought of as idiomaticly right or wrong while I'm on the bandstand instead of playing what is coming from my heart I would most likely end up staying home.

Bob

Bob- Nicely said. If we just play what is in our hearts and heads, and we have the right tools, it will come out all right....al