Scot Ranney's LearnJazzPiano.com archive: just my opinion

LearnJazzPiano.com archives: just my opinion
Mike -- 09/10/2007, 19:25:25 -- #36990
i think the Government should censor any pianist from public performance or recording if they can not perform Giant Steps and improvise over the changes to that tune at a minimum tempo of quarter note equals 120. If I were elected President I would try to make this become law. ...Oh so sorry I guess this post should be in the Politics room?
CynBad -- 09/10/2007, 20:57:05 -- #36990
Well, if I were elected President, I would concentrate more on banning the playing of "Rhapsody in Blue" from all public places. I would make it a felony.
Mike -- 09/10/2007, 22:14:52 -- #36990
Oh yes good idea. But I think it should be a more serious offence to request it. Also anyone who ever requests Sinatra like Sinatra ever composed one of his own tunes would get five to ten years. Requesting "Pianoman" or any Billy Joel or Elton John would be against the law. "Performance Law" would take on an entirely new meaning in my Country.
charlp88 -- 09/11/2007, 05:35:07 -- #36990
two convicted murderers were sentenced to death by firing squad.the first con was asked for a last request, he replied I want to hear 100 choruses of ACHY BREAKY HEART. the second con said SHOOT ME FIRST.
Whacky -- 09/11/2007, 07:26:22 -- #36990
Excellent Mike! This could be a very important doctrine to which we can all add. Here is my partial list of potential offenses. While requesting "Memory" is a debatable offense, appending the words "from Cats" to the title, should result in prison time. Requesting "Rollin Down The River" or "Big Wheels" should also result in incarceration. I am also frequently offended by folks who write lyrics to classic instrumental jazz tunes, like So What, All Blues, Giant Steps ("I take Giant Steps, yes sir....I take Giant Steps, big ole steps, Giant Steps, Big ole steps, Giant steps...yes sir")
Whacky -- 09/11/2007, 07:31:38 -- #36990
wait a minute...I just copyrighted those lyrics. I'm gonna do a very offensive album and see how much money I can make before these new laws go into effect.
sdm -- 09/12/2007, 13:11:39 -- #36990
...wait one more...some of the people that do that (words to tunes) do some darn nice stuff. Annie Ross comes to mind as does as does Lorraine Feather (for something more contemporary). I'm a fan of that whole vocalese thing.
Jazz+ -- 09/12/2007, 15:06:44 -- #36990
Keep up the good work boys.
jazz jasper -- 09/12/2007, 15:30:06 -- #36990
I think anyone who thinks that pop music is music should be shot, any music with 3 and in special cases 4 chords or less should be banned. I second Dr,Whacks writing lyrics offense, I would also like to invest in his new album, and would love to write along side him in creating the most offensive load of crap possible.
CynBad -- 09/12/2007, 16:25:16 -- #36990
Well, jasper, you seem to have missed the fact that jazz uses popular music as its basic source of material.
jazz jasper -- 09/12/2007, 16:54:03 -- #36990
Well, Cynbad, I think you'll find that jazz came before the popular music im talking about. Im talking about the rubbish pop music of the 60's and right up to today, not the popular music of the 20's and 30's which actually had a bit more to it than a couple of spotty teenagers who can only play the chords E, A, and D, playing their guitars singing about what they think love is. The music back then was an arrangment with a live band with horns and maybe strings, a proper rhythm section and had been thought about and actually had a few more than 3 chords. If you can find me a song with 3 chords or less that was written before the 40's ill be impressed. Much love Jasper xxx
sdm -- 09/12/2007, 17:38:51 -- #36990
To Cynbad's point, there is much good jazz that comes from popular music of the last couple of decades. Think of all the Beatles songs that have been done by good jazz people for instance. There are tons of examples. Now, that said, my first reaction to Jasper's suggestion was "YES!" but, you know, I was thinking of people like Christine Aguilera. And again, I've been in the opposition but on there other hand, there are a couple of folks I might vote for here. Got to be better than the "current resident" and we did OK with some musical knowlege (maybe not talent) in that big white house recently.
CynBad -- 09/12/2007, 19:34:02 -- #36990
"Standards" are, by definition, popular songs. Granted, the old ones were great, but there are still people writing great popular songs. And more and more, great jazz artists are playing these "New Standards". Check out Herbie Hancock's recording of the same name. Brad Mehldau plays Radiohead. EVERYBODY plays the Beatles. Herbie played Nirvana. The list will go on forever. Look at all the great songs from Stevie Wonder, Earth Wind & Fire, etc.
jazz jasper -- 09/12/2007, 20:08:59 -- #36990
Cynbad, I totally agree, but I garuntee that these recordings are not using the standard changes, they've added substitutions and not playing them like the original arrangments were, e.g, with a guitar pumping out 3 chords for the whole songs. I'll change my request. I want to ban all songs that have been ARRANGED with 3 chords or less and that have not had any thought put into the arrangment - perhaps not the songs themselves but the versions that are so boringly simple and unmusical. I know that standards are pop songs but the pop songs of today with kids on their guitars are shite. I have just thought though, Im from the UK, and 90% of the music over here is people who have been shot to fame for 10 minutes with no talent or any ability in music, they only become famous because someone wants to make a quick buck off of them. Take this for example, the drummer on the show im playing on has done loads of stuff in the studio for a lot of the modern pop bands. He turns up and trys to beef up their songs to make them a bit more commercial. He's an amazing drummer, but as soon as he puts in a fill with quavers and triplets, he's told that he can't do that because the drummer in the band won't be able to play it. He has to make it as simple as possible so that these half wits can play it on stage. I don't know what its like in the US but in the UK, MOST and i emphasize MOST (not all of it) is rubbish. Going off on a tangent now, in the UK we have show called the X factor, which is a Simon Cowell creation, (he's one of the judges alongside Sharon Osbourne), now this is a show that has millions watching it, more people vote for people on X factor than they do when voting in a new government, and despite these amazing ratings and money coming in, they don't have a live band in the finals!!! They have backing tracks for the whole run, the only time they had a live band was on big band week and Simon Cowell paid for the big band himself, not the TV company. The thing that annoys me is that there are people out there who can't read a note of music, and would freeze up if they had a chart put infront of them, earning millions from playing the same 3 chords (usually E, A and B,), moaning about the world or singing about what they think is love. But at the same time, there are people out there who have worked their whole lives playing music who are shit hot at what they do, earning no money because all of these looooosers are getting work with their rubbish 3 chord, thoughtless songs. Its crazy!!! We must eliminate these modern day 'pop' groups and bring back real music with real musicians, who have talent and who have imagination, and technique, who can read, and blah blah blah. Name me the modern day charlie parker. Who is the modern day Bill Evans, or Scot la Faro, who is re-inventing their instrument at the moment and are in the forefront of the media for doing so. Its just my opinion that music is going backwards, getting more and more simple, well, over here in England anyway, jazz is dead over here no one wants to know really, no money in it at all, people want to hear these idiots playing their guitars. Rant over.
jmkarns -- 09/12/2007, 20:22:20 -- #36990
Just a footnote to add to jaspers rant. A contest was held the other day for the best "air guitar" player. I kid you not, some guy from Japan won. The prize was a real guitar! I wonder what he will do with it? I'm telling you this is what our modern pop culture has created.
MoJazz -- 09/13/2007, 03:17:38 -- #36990
Go check out the "musicians wanted" posts at http://craigslist.org. Everywhere in most countries there are the 3 chord wanna bees who desperately want to join the minion. Some even have a myspace account!
funk -- 09/13/2007, 15:20:20 -- #36990
I fully agree with jazz jasper. there are a lot of reasons for this development. On of the reasons is that the kids are getting more lazy and are not prepared anymore to take the time to learn to play an instrument. The other reason is the music schools. Lessons are getting more expensive and time is short. The school wants to make the lesson interesting so they let the children work with garageband. The institute thinks it is stimulating the child's creativity. In no time the pupil can compose a song.But playing it on an instrument? They can not even sit properly behind their instrument. There is nothing wrong with children enjoying their hobby this way but if these are the future musicians I think we stop calling it music.
jazz jasper -- 09/13/2007, 16:05:50 -- #36990
Funk uses the word 'lazy', I think thats a perfect word to use for kids who play music today, well most of them seeing as Im only 19, (20 in 5 days though!!). Theres a band in the UK called the 'artic monkeys', the usual rubbish with guitars and boring songs. They did a years tour and after the year was up the bass player of the band said he was retiring because he was... 'tierd'...... he was my age - 19!!! TIRED?!?!?!?! Im playing on a west end tour everynight, up and down the country 8 times a week im behind a keyboard for 3 hours at a time playing off a score and having to use my brain, but I don't complain of being tired, and although its boring I would never complain that im in work and working with world class musicians, but these lazy kids making millions off the public, touring for a year playing rubbish that shouldn't be called music that is so piddly and simple and they come back and say they are tired!! MENTAL!!!!!!!!
ziggysane -- 09/13/2007, 23:00:41 -- #36990
Dude it is late, but Jasper, I have to disagree with you man. I will try to state my reasons in a coherent fashion. For starters, don't knock three chords. Or four for that matter. Three was good enough for Lightning Hopkins, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Albert King, Otis Spann, Muddy Waters, and quite a few others. For that matter, ONE CHORD was good enough for Muddy, John Lee Hooker, James Brown, and a few hundred more funk players. It seems like you're knocking the simplicity on general principle. Jazz is not great merely because it is complex, and the Blues and Pop, among others, do not suck just because they are simple musics. On the same note, Rock and Roll was derided upon its inception because of its lyrical simplicity as well. A talk show host brought Phil Spector (nevermind what he's done in his personal life) on his show, and proceeded to recite the lyrics of a current hit. The lyrics in question primarily consisted of "He's a very fine boy." The host then asked Spector how the youth of America could be satisfied by such drivel (btw I paraphrase as I do not have the article that detailed this incident in front of me at the moment). Spector proceeded to remind the host that he was leaving out the most important part: the beat. That primal, ass-shaking thump that drove the two lines of verse and three chords. That's what the kids were tuning into, something that jazz fell out of touch with upon the rise of bebop. They were listening to Little Richard's howl, Jerry Lee's Piano, and Chuck Berry's guitar. Established musicians derided rock music when it first appeared. The songwriters called it (again) drivel. The jazz musicians thought that it was too simple. The drummers were embarrassed to play the back beat. The pianists, classical and jazz, scoffed at the Fats Domino triplet "claw" technique. But the listeners ate it up. My point is that the average listener still isn't looking for bebop. The pop-punk bands (the simplest music around, not counting most rap) have that pulsing rhythm and four chords over simple lyrics that the audience can relate to and melodies that they can sing. Try to say that for Ornithology. Sure, its easy to hate them for their technical ineptitude and lack of effort. I'm primarily a rock musician who was trained early on to read music, and I still look down on the punk guys because all they have to do is learn their two finger power chords and off they go. BUT THE AUDIENCE DOESN'T KNOW THAT AND THEY DON'T CARE. And I've tried to accept it. Also, most of these guys are playing specifically for and trying to connect with their audience, which is a matter completely apart from the music. As much as I like jazz, the audience interaction component is much less significant, another remnant of Bebop. Knowing all this, why be so bitter? Sure the audience will never know about 95% of the artistry and work that goes into your music, but they'll enjoy it all the same. Musical elitism is great for maintaining standards, but not at the expense of everything that falls outside its boundaries. Jazz has its place. So does punk, and country, and rap. Just try to appreciate each of them for what they are. Finally, you're pretty young Jasper, and no offense, but it sounds like you were raised/educated as a Jazz Snob or in some other musically elitist fashion. I wasn't at all (Blues, Rock, Sinatra), so my perspective is pretty different. There's no sense in being angry or bitter about whether most musicians and listeners "get" jazz. Just play what you want to play and maybe people will listen.
jazz jasper -- 09/14/2007, 07:20:06 -- #36990
I agree with you that the average listener isn't wanting bebop, they want something simple that they can sing along to. And they get that with people like Stevie Wonder, Alicia Keys, John Legend, etc. My problem is that its just pure lazyness, ANYONE can come up with a simple tune and melody no problem but when you back it with a guitar, bass and drums playing the same chords its just lazy. There's no invention behind it. Sure the audience don't really care but the audience don't really have a choice. Just as they didn't have a choice when it was a big band arrangment or a string arrangment, what the problem is is that there are people who work really really hard to learn how to play their instrument and then there are lazy people who try to get away with the bare minimum. So the next argument is... well the audience has a choice. Well no they don't because the lazy music is shoved in people's faces, they don't have a choice because the public don't tell the music industry what they want, its the music industry (you'll probably dispute that), which leads me onto my next point which is the reason that the music industry uses these crap low life drug taking losers is because they are cheap. Why spend thousands on recording a big band when you can spend a couple of quid on a few teenages playing the same 3 chords. Why spend money on arrangments when you just need to tidy up some of the mistakes the kids make? Because its cheap its rammed down the publics throat so they don't have a choice. If these people put some work in and had taken music seriously then the industry would have had to put out some decent stuff. THE AUDIENCE LOVE IT BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO and its marketed very very well, all you need is the popular kid in the playground to say its cool and everyone think it is. Secondly im not a jazz snob, or a classical snob or anything, mainly because I taught myself to play the piano and more importantly taught myself how to read music, and then took lessons in classical piano and then I took a jazz course 3 years ago, and I have never never said that any style of music is the be all and end all. 3 years ago I thought that 'jazz' was Frank Sinatra just like the people that were talking about here, but I put the effort in and worked hard and now am earning great money playing the keyboard. I may come across as a snob because everynight im in a pit with old musicians in their 50's and 60's who have played the game and go on about how shit music is today, but I am not a snob in anyway, just because I put effort into my choice of work doesn't make me a snob, would you call someone who worked really hard discovering new cures for illnesess a geek or a science snob?! Probably not. Clearly their are at least 3 other snobs here because they seem to agree with me. If you check the previous posts I have commented on you will see that I have always said that music is not just about jazz or just about classical, or rock or any one particular style, you have to be able to do it all. The problem is is that these lazy people think that they are musicians when all they can play is those crappy riffs, ask them to solo over something or add some substitutions or arrange some horn lines and they'll freak! They are only 'musicians' because they are cheap and easy to sell, not because they are clever people with imagination.
jazz jasper -- 09/14/2007, 07:34:11 -- #36990
If someone wanted to be a famous movie star, and they could'nt read words, and they could only say, Hi, How are you, Goodbye, how far do you think they would get?
ziggysane -- 09/14/2007, 09:04:03 -- #36990
On the subject of acting, I would think of someone like Clint Eastwood as three chord music. He has a limited acting range, and he mostly plays grizzled tough guys. He's gotten much better over the years playing within those archetypes, but he'll probably never be compared to the versatility of Redford, Brando, Hoffman or Hackman. But I like him anyway. And I agree with you that if an actor was illiterate or had no chops whatsoever, in most cases they would be out on their ass pretty quickly. And I also agree with your comments about the music industry, which I failed to comment on earlier. They are the death of creativity and innovation. There was a big mess about Kelly Clarkson's album and how she was such a rebel for releasing an album that Clive Davis didn't approve of. But it doesn't break any new ground. It's just Kelly Clarkson with more depressing lyrics and less catchy songs. And pardon the snob remark, as I do not know you personally, but you do come off as elitist and bitter just based on this thread. And I would love to have your gigs if I had the chops. For the record, I think that its completely unfair that Nickleback can write the same song over and over again and none of their fans notice. And I think that Britney Spears (who has since gotten hers it seems) is one of the least talented "musicians" to have ever hit it big. All she had was good genetics, a passable voice, and dancing, and she let them all go in the past couple years.
CynBad -- 09/14/2007, 10:20:06 -- #36990
Actually, I totally understand where jasper is coming from. He's just venting his frustration. I'm just saying that there are some great "popular" songs written since 1960, and they make great material for jazz. That's the whole point of jazz, isn't it? Take something vanilla and jazz it up. Make something different out of it. Be creative. And despite all the 3-chord lame-brains out there that call themselves musicians, there are now MORE extremely talented and skilled young musicians than ever before in history. The kids are scary good, in both classical and jazz music.
jazz jasper -- 09/14/2007, 10:31:49 -- #36990
Yeah I agree, I do come across as a bit of a snob in this thread and in some cases, only because it annoys me how some people can make money out of the industry i work in with out putting in any effort, and I agree Cynbad, there are people who are in their early teens who are unbelivably good. Your right I am venting my frustration due to the amazing musicians in this world, who if they were born 50 maybe 60 years earlier would be out there playing the music they love rather than stuck in an orchestra pit and losing out to teenagers with guitars. Ah well...
7 -- 09/14/2007, 13:49:20 -- #36990
First you must understand that every generation of teenagers is obliged to rebel against what their parents liked. The parents and "elders" are supposed to hate whatever the teenagers are listening to. And if the old folks don't hate it, then it's not cool. Second, teenagers are listening to musicians pretty close to their own age group. It's important to teens that they have something that belongs only to them, something that "outsiders" aren't privy to. So teenagers are listening to other teenagers. Which is to say that they are listening to musicians who have not had decades in which to hone their craft. These musicians play what they are capable of (which often IS extremely simple stuff). The bottom line here is: If you aren't a member of the clique that worships a certain style of music, they don't care if you don't like it. They don't want you to like it. And the more you put it down, the harder their resolve to defend it. When Hendrix hit the scene in the late '60s, the older generation hated him. "Nothing but noise", "Drug Music", etc ... Nowadays everyone acknowledges that Hendrix was a genius innovator that changed the face of music forever. Similar things were said of Bird in the early days of bebop. Sometimes it takes many years before the revelations sink in. Calvin Brown, who gigged with Sonny Stitt and is currently with Roy Ayers (acid jazz vibraphonist), is very good friend of mine and an excellent jazz guitarist that played in my band for years and years. Calvin once said to me "I used to think that a song had to have a million chords in it, otherwise it wasn't hip. Now I realize that a song doesn't have to be complex to be great, and I'm happy just to dig in and groove". Amen
jazz jasper -- 09/14/2007, 15:14:26 -- #36990
I totally agree 7, but i think your missing my point. Im not saying that a tune has to have a million changes in it to be worth anything, take modal tunes for example, little sunflower, so what? impressions, they have 2 chords in them, but they groove and the solo's are genius. Im sure that Calvin Brown is happy to dig in and play it simple and thats great, but Im also sure that he can play unbelivably well and i bet he has amazing chops. Thats what Im getting at, I would have no problem with these people if they were playing simple stuff because thats what is selling at the time and because thats what they are into at the time, IF they had the musicality behind all of it. Sometimes I love playing pop songs and just letting it groove and not over playing and not changing the chords so that it takes away from the song. I like playing tastefully and simply, but if the drummer says to me, now were going to do 'joy spring', and hands me an arrangment with certain pushes and stabs and certain voicings, I would like to think that I could do it. Its good to play simple but its nice to sit there playing simple things but knowing that if needs be you can play much more complex things. Its like driving a really powerful Ferrari down a normal road at 30 miles per hour, and sitting there knowing that if you wanted you could put your foot down and unleash the power of it all. The kids of today who are famous because of playing the guitar, don't have this behind them. If they did then we wouldn't have albums full of the same thing. And you can't say that kids don't have years to develop. Take Scot LaFaro, he changed the way people play the bass forever with Bill Evans, and will always be remebered for that, he was taken in by the Buddy Morrow big band and was known as one of the best young bass players in the world at 19. The problem with today is that kids are lazy. No excuses. I can't see us looking back in 50 years and going 'wow, blink 182, how clever were they, limpbizkit, and britney spears, those songs were really inspired, can you hear how amazing her computerised singing voice is - genius!'. Probably not.
Rid -- 09/14/2007, 19:16:20 -- #36990
Gee, I hate to interrupt these esoteric ruminations, but as an aside to low-life Gershwinophiles - take heart, I checked with the pollsters and she doesn't stand a chance for 2008. Not in the running, not even on the radar screen. Still, it wouldn't hurt to register to vote.
jmkarns -- 09/14/2007, 20:28:43 -- #36990
There are as many opinions about music as there are EyePODS. That's why Apple is raking in the millions, and concerts that have a dozen best-seller bands on stage trying to save the world, fall short.
rewsnat -- 09/24/2007, 04:05:51 -- #36990
Didn't Bill Evans Wrote Peace Piece which is less than 3 chords?? wow.. would be a shame to have him shot...
jazz jasper -- 09/24/2007, 05:51:42 -- #36990
Well lets shoot you because if you had bothered to read the threads you would have seen that I pointed out that Freddie Hubbard and a few others wrote songs with 2 chords!!! Like most people your missing the point, its not about how many chords there are its about how good the players are and if they want to play a million chords or 2 chords they can, and they can do it well, rather than playing 3 chords and only 3 chords badly like most music and musicians today.
jazz jasper -- 09/24/2007, 19:37:03 -- #36990
Can I also point out that Oscar Peterson is well known for playing blues tunes and quite often these only involve 3 chords, Im not slagging off 3 chord songs, im against musicians who only work to just being able to play 3 chords and barely managing to do that well. Oscar can solo over a simple blues and make it sound incredible or over a bebop head and make it sound equalliy as good, but these musicians - who can barely play a 3 chord blues make millions from singing about how they want to take drugs and kill themselvs over rubbish 3 chord arrangments which a monkey could play - are scum.
Mike -- 09/25/2007, 00:21:54 -- #36990
yes clearly the law can not be about the number of chords in a tune. The law should be as I originally posted it.. geez. As long as someone can play Giant Steps with some reasonable level of profecincy this should assure that they are not going to produce total crap... or at least it should be a good preventitive measure.
jazz jasper -- 09/25/2007, 07:44:34 -- #36990
Amen, what a long full circle that was.
sykora -- 09/27/2007, 02:05:22 -- #36990
Here's my rant, from the perspective of someone who enjoys listening to almost everything (except modern country, which I will get into at some point), and improvises on piano using both art music (classical music and modern jazz) and popular music as source material. Most of this was inspired by jazz jasper's comments. I am near jazz jasper's stated age (I'm 21) and I live in the US. Admittedly I have less bias regarding the music industry because my day job is well-paying enough that I perform music without thinking about generating notable income from it. An overwhelming majority of the population is not "musical" in the sense that they cannot create sound that is perceived as music. This is highly subjective but I think most people here would agree. It depends on how liberally you think about what music is. Not anyone can just pick up a guitar and play something sensible. Simple 1-5-1 power chords still require a certain degree of skill. Granted, some musicians may not be able to read a lead sheet or even play anything beyond their select chords. Personally, I think we're all lucky to be able to even play well enough that some people consider us artists or enjoyable to listen to. You probably play music to entertain other people, or you enjoy making music for yourself, or perhaps some compromise between the two. I know no one personally that has a career in music performance but hates playing. The reality is, some music is treated as art, some is treated as entertainment, and there's certainly crossover. Unless you gain all of your enjoyment in music by yourself (as in playing with no audience other than the players), you care about the audience to some degree, and therefore you are an entertainer in that sense. Generally, those who are the best entertainers will achieve the most market share (audience). That is, if you play entirely and only to your target audience, you will probably have a bigger audience than someone who doesn't care about their audience. Based on your target audience, you may naturally have a lot of fans (popular music) or relatively few (Cecil Taylor). So if you don't care about entertaining a large audience, you shouldn't really be surprised if you don't have a large audience. Very importantly, artists that are trying to do a good job entertaining must consider aspects besides musical talent (physical appearance, target audience, sociability, PR/marketing, etc.) We all probably get something out of playing what we want to play, but it might not always be in line with the largest (or target) audience. So sometimes we compromise, for whatever reason (money, exposure/networking). Some people seem bitter about this, and in my opinion, this is a representation of unfortunate social consequences (the music industry is a business based off of Western capitalist thought, leading to people without "musical talent" becoming overwhelmingly wealthy/famous and yet leaving the profession of performing musician as a highly unstable financial career path to take). To jazz jasper: I'm not suggesting that anyone should act or feel a certain way. But would it really bother you as much if you made millions playing music, along with those you call scum? Furthermore, think about this: would you trade your "musical skill" for a guitar, knowledge of barely 3 chords, an awesome marketing team that makes you known worldwide, and millions of dollars? My guess is some of us would say no, because we get something out of playing music. But just because these other people can't play Moment's Notice with us doesn't mean they aren't good at something else related to the music industry - perhaps they are more marketable than you (you said so yourself) in other ways? I don't mind if people are pissed if the public calls these people "musicians," but I don't like the hate that comes from it. If you're jealous I can understand, but these "lazy kids" aren't the ones bringing down your income potential or stealing your audience - that has happened over the course of the last 60 years.
Copyright � 2005 by Scot Ranney. All rights reserved.
Click Here for more information about performances and clinics. Click Here to sign up for Scot's music announcements.