Jazz for aficionados

*****These folks are as far away from understanding music theory on your level, as a person can get. But they do indeed get the visceral part. To me it says, HOME.*****

You would be surprised. What I described above is as rudimentary as one can get when one considers just how much there is to learn. The folks you mention would most certainly have this knowledge and more. I think that the point is how little most non-musican music lovers/audiophiles understand, how much there is to learn (if wanted), how much learning can improve appreciation, and that there is often a visceral aversion to learning more.

I hope that this does not offend anyone, but IMO, if a jazz lover doesn't know (for example) that most blues tunes are 12 measures long, I would suggest that the love doesn't go quite deep enough.

****'You would be surprised'****

Nope, don't think so. I stand by what I said. When it comes to the REAL blues, you might be surprised.

**********but IMO, if a jazz lover doesn't know (for example) that most blues tunes are 12 measures long, I would suggest that the love doesn't go quite deep enough.******

I am not offended in the least. I know about the Blues thingy, but I am surprised you would use that, because a lot of the Jazz that you have presented on this forum,as being your favorites, has no blues element at all. Which pretty much sums up what's wrong with so-called MODERN / WORLD Jazz.

And lastly, there is no prerequisite or requirement, to have any formal education, or training, or experience, or talent, in order to appreciate music, or any other art form. If there were, the concert halls and art galleries would be empty.

But in the end, it is the non-musical, the non-artistic, who are the final arbitrators. They decide who is great and not so great. They decide who is saying something and who is not. Lack of knowledge of the blues notwithstanding.

So the consumers of all this effort by the creative musicians, are the most important folks in the entire scheme of things.

Your post was very informative to me. Rudimentary or not.

Cheers

If I said anything to give you the identity of my "jazz friend", I would appreciate it if you just forgot it. His heirs, who I respect, might object to my revelation of the fact that he never practiced.

Maybe Frogman, or Learsfool could tell us how he selected the musicians to accompany him on what they called "pick up gigs". Although none of them were famous, they were accomplished jazz musicians. These sets were always in what I call "deep in the pocket" jazz clubs, no requests of standards, all improvisation, where the musicians had to really be down with it. "If you can't git down, don't git up".

That last note reminds me of a local jazz musician I knew. When I asked him why he wasn't famous, he explained that he preferred the life of a family man to being on the road, and then he opened a large album of photos which contained photographs of him accompanying many very famous musicians when they came to town.

The last time I saw him, he really put on a show. Since he knew all my favorite tunes, not only did he nail them, but he added his own licks which indicated, not only did he have what it took, but that he knew he had what it took.

I recall an interview of Horace Silver by a famous DJ, where Horace was telling him about problems with his bass player. "He told me that he was tired of playing that same old "beeng bong", I told him that's what makes my sound, I've got to have that "Beeng bong". he wanted to stretch out and make it known that he could play more than "beeng bong". I don't recall how Horace resolved that issue, but if you listen to the 1956 version of Senor Blues, with Hank Mobley, tenor sax; Donald byrd, trumpet; Doug Watkins, bass; Louis Hayes, drums; you'll hear how "beeng bong" blends in with the piano and makes that jam so spectacular. Maybe Horace gave him a raise, I don't know, but this is a remarkable revelation to both sides of that "beeng bong" coin.

I think that it is importantly to stay on focus in these discussions. I said nothing about "formal" training being a prerequisite for anything. To understand what "form" is in a tune, and to be able to explain the rudiments of improvisation is something that, even if one doesn't "study" it, is one thing that becomes part of any competent musician's (any genre) sphere of knowledge simply through assimilation, and what the process of (for instance) memorizing a tune demands of a musician. I think that you are mistaken about this. I have met many non-musician music "geeks" without any "formal" music education who have a very deep understanding of all this and much more. All I am saying is that it is a very worthwhile pursuit, and that (going back to the issue of the romanticizing of the process) there is no need to fear the learning; it will do nothing but heighten the enjoyment of the music.

****but I am surprised you would use that, because a lot of the Jazz that you have presented on this forum,as being your favorites, has no blues element at all****

Are you kidding me? What was the very first recording I recommended in my first post to this thread? "Blues And The Abstract Truth"; and many others have their roots in the blues. Focus, man, focus :-)

****But in the end, it is the non-musical, the non-artistic, who are the final arbitrators. They decide who is great and not so great. They decide who is saying something and who is not. Lack of knowledge of the blues notwithstanding.****

Really? Two words; well actually one word and one letter:

Kenny G

OK, that was trite; sorry. Look at it this way: if it weren't for the scene itself (the players) promoting certain players who they like to play with, and who the established cats feel will be important voices, the corporate dudes would not know who they are. Obviously, at some point the politics of it all starts to take on more and more importance, but usually by then the foundation has been laid out by the scene itself; not the other way around. With some exceptions as to merit; of course. Again, two words......

Here's how it was explained to me by a working musician -- you don't actually know 1,600 songs. What you do know are standard harmonic devices which are the basis of popular music. You know these in different keys and can work them in various modes. With a few exceptions the structure of most songs are fairly standardized. It also helps if someone in the band actually knows the melody. And if you start to get lost, you can always play some blues. Finally, he said you have to study specific tunes from people like Ellington, Monk or Shorter because they are different enough to require individual study. The way I understand what he was saying is that once you understand what form the music is in, playing the song becomes relatively easy, assuming you have talent and you've put in the hours of practice.