modern jazz theory stuff

[BertKoor]

Get a guy with a Sitar from India, a white guy from the 1700s on a piano, a Latino guy on Bass, and some African Tribe for the percussion...have them play completely different songs, different rhythms, different textures and tones.....and you have Jazz.

No, that would be Fusion or some other niche hole like World Music.

[bernhardtjeff]

edit: double post

[bernhardtjeff]

i said a while back that i wanted to put something more contemporary up as an example of where jazz theory has been in the past few years. i can't think of a better example of the general trend than this piece by cuong vu:

http://www.jopyjopyjopy.com/public/about-2/cuong-vu

there are a few things that i really think mark out the theoretical modernity of this piece that are a clear break from the history of jazz. the most obvious is that one of the initial concepts of jazz fusion, to emphasize timbre as a vital component of composition, is clearly dominant. although all the members of this group are virtuoso players in their own right, excepting for occasional flourishes your ear isn't always drawn to just how facile they are. dexterity is de-emphasized, phrasing and rhythm are everything. using electronics is not really "theory" i suppose, but the use of timbre and orchestration via electronics is very much a part of conventional music theory and there are a hell of a lot of orchestration choices being made in this group as this piece evolves.

a second key feature of this piece that i hear in a lot of stuff from the '00s is the use of a very minimal melodic and harmonic structure that permits a lot of freedom for all members of a group. this is, i think, a reflection of free jazz (cuong vu plays acoustic free jazz too). the quick lines and chord changes of bebop are very demanding, and to keep up with all the changes basically means playing some fairly restrained rhythmic ideas. the more minimal structure allows for a much more fluid conception of the piece and also encourages long ideas that take up a lot of space to be used.

and for the record, wynton lost the war.

hey man, i'm really glad you put up a clip of cuong vu! at first, you were talking about modern jazz but were stuck in the 60s, and i was thinking, "man, he should put up something REALLY modern, like cuong vu." and here you went ahead and did it!

cuong's stuff is pretty amazing. pretty much the only "jazz" i could get my jazz-hating friends to actually go see live. if you get some of cuong's cds from his artistshare page, he uploads lead-sheets and audio explanations of the tunes on his latest album, "vu-tet," which are pretty interesting to study. i can't say enough about his music. he manages to combine free improv/jazz, rock, metal, ambient and 20th century classical music all in one, and it kicks ass. anyone not following his music is missing one of the greatest artists of the last 10 years. there are a few videos of him on youtube, but nothing of very good quality (except the stuff of him with pmg, which is totally different from his own stuff).

now if only there were more forward thinking jazz musicians like him... instead, mostly when you hear "jazz" it's guys playing in a local swing band on the weekends or some boring shit

oh, by the way, everyone in this thread should ignore Sixofour. he trolls threads where jazz is mentioned and bashes it for attention.

[Sascha Franck]

i said a while back that i wanted to put something more contemporary up as an example of where jazz theory has been in the past few years. i can't think of a better example of the general trend than this piece by cuong vu:

http://www.jopyjopyjopy.com/public/about-2/cuong-vu

Hm. Really, I don't know how this would show any "modern" jazz theory approach. During the "theme" parts, harmony and melody are as easy as on any average pop song. Basically it's Imin - bVI with a few variations and a second part which isn't any more interesting, harmonically. The melody doesn't use anything but completely "in" notes, there's no chromatics, just a plain old natural minor scale. Only to completely lose any harmonic relationship during the improvisation part.
As said, I wouldn't happen to know how this would describe a "trend" or anything.

Apart from that, these are really lousy players. Timing seems to be something they never even remotely heard of.

Sorry for these possibly harsh words, but as said...

- Sascha

[gnu23]

First off, thanks for this thread. I always appreciate the generally thoughtful posts in this subforum.

I just want to insert a imprecise quote of a thought from Miles Davis in his 60 Minutes interview years ago. What it boils out to is this: All music is good. Whether a person likes a particular type of music is up to their personal tastes. For some, it's death metal - others, jazz. And so on. Me? I was forcefed Country&Western as a kid, so I have a really hard time with a lot of it to this day. Even with that, I still like the occasional laid back Willie Nelson track now and then. Just something about his voice and approach. Same with Johnny Cash.


So - no need to come trash the thread. If it isn't your taste, it isn't. Move on, no harm done.

[bernhardtjeff]

i said a while back that i wanted to put something more contemporary up as an example of where jazz theory has been in the past few years. i can't think of a better example of the general trend than this piece by cuong vu:

http://www.jopyjopyjopy.com/public/about-2/cuong-vu

Hm. Really, I don't know how this would show any "modern" jazz theory approach. During the "theme" parts, harmony and melody are as easy as on any average pop song. Basically it's Imin - bVI with a few variations and a second part which isn't any more interesting, harmonically. The melody doesn't use anything but completely "in" notes, there's no chromatics, just a plain old natural minor scale. Only to completely lose any harmonic relationship during the improvisation part.
As said, I wouldn't happen to know how this would describe a "trend" or anything.

Apart from that, these are really lousy players. Timing seems to be something they never even remotely heard of.

Sorry for these possibly harsh words, but as said...

- Sascha

wow...

well sure, cuong vu himself has admitted that some of his songs show embarrasing influences of pop songs from when he was a kid.

but calling these guys lousy players? do you mean because they're not playing all the common jazz licks over the regular changes? and lousy timing? hmm.... well, watch this poorly-recorded youtube video of their "lousy timing" (the second song starts around 1:30)

[Sascha Franck]

but calling these guys lousy players? do you mean because they're not playing all the common jazz licks over the regular changes? and lousy timing? hmm.... well, watch this poorly-recorded youtube video of their "lousy timing" (the second song starts around 1:30)

I've seen that video already, because I wanted to get informed about what the fuzz is about.
And yes, especially the timing of the bass player is extraordinarily bad (same on the recording on jmeier's site). I have no idea about why he's playing in this band.
And oh well, yes, I do have an idea about "lose" timing. But that doesn't excuse plain bad timing.
Sorry.

- Sascha

[jopy]

As you probably can guess Sascha, I don't agree at all with you, but I do like discussing this, so please don't take my responding to your criticism as a sign it's taken badly. A discussion where everyone agrees isn't very informative.

Hm. Really, I don't know how this would show any "modern" jazz theory approach. During the "theme" parts, harmony and melody are as easy as on any average pop song.

I think that's part of the change in the most modern jazz playing. There has been a movement towards using more ideas straight from pop music without making things overly complex. This gives more room to breathe for solos. It also emphasizes an older trend in jazz to use the lingua franca of the time as a basis for composition. Miles from 1968 forward is an example of this. At one time jazz was pop music, and I think the school of Thirsty Ear sometimes wants to push this back to the fore, to make jazz relevant for a modern audience rather than an esoteric realm that few audiences can relate to.

And yes, especially the timing of the bass player is extraordinarily bad (same on the recording on jmeier's site). I have no idea about why he's playing in this band.

And oh well, yes, I do have an idea about "lose" timing. But that doesn't excuse plain bad timing.

Here you lose me; I don't hear anything wrong with their timing. In fact, I think this bass player is absolutely perfect for this style. It's certainly open and impressionistic, and yes, the drummer and bass player are all over the map, but that's an element of the style--avoiding ever locking a groove down too tightly, keeping the feel as loose as possible. I knew a few guys who worked extremely hard to be able to hold something of a groove together while never locking in a beat, sort of like the drummer and bass player here, so it's no accident. Maybe you could give me an example of a jazz group with "better" timing so I can maybe hear what you're talking about. Bad is a vague word so maybe probing into this issue deeper might help us understand one another.

[Sascha Franck]

I think that's part of the change in the most modern jazz playing. There has been a movement towards using more ideas straight from pop music without making things overly complex. This gives more room to breathe for solos.

Ok, might be. I'd understand this perfectly. Yet, especially in the example you posted, as soon as the soloing starts, there's close to nothing left of the original "harmless" progression and melody.
I'm not saying this isn't intentional, but it doesn't float my boat at all. I prefer a little, hm, let's say "consistence". In case you want to go all wild while soloing, why not use a song "vehicle" aiming into that direction for a start? As said, might be a personal thing, but I for one like a song to have a certain "theme", "mood" or whatever you may call it. I just don't like a song to start as easy as a children lullaby and then end in whatever improvisation havoc, especially without much of a plausible movement between these sections.

Here you lose me; I don't hear anything wrong with their timing. In fact, I think this bass player is absolutely perfect for this style. It's certainly open and impressionistic, and yes, the drummer and bass player are all over the map, but that's an element of the style--avoiding ever locking a groove down too tightly, keeping the feel as loose as possible.

I don't know, really. As said, I am familiar with "loose" grooves, but this simply doesn't click with me at all. At least on the bass side of things, it almost sounds like technical difficulties. Oh yes, that's a rather snobbish statement, but I can't help it. I've been watching some of the stuff that's available on YouTube and my feelings have always been the same.
As far as examples of properly grooving bands go, I like quite some Herbie Hancock stuff (yes, the jazz stuff) and I don't mind some of the old masters, either. For instance, to me Oscar Peterson is almost the master of a groovy jazz piano.

Cheers
Sascha

[jopy]

I think preference for different levels or forms of structure explains a lot about what people like, especially when it comes to contemporary jazz. It's interesting that you mention Oscar Peterson as an example. I doubt any who have hung with this thread this long don't know who Oscar Peterson is, but it's nice to hear Oscar play, so here's a link to Birk's Works:

http://www.deezer.com/track/birks-works-T1089183

Now, I have a ton of respect for Oscar Peterson, he has monster technique, a rich harmonic knowledge, an unbelievable sense of swing, and complete control over everything he does. But for some reason I don't ever feel like listening to him. I hear it and I'm impressed, but not really moved deep down. For Peterson, he has a lot of very brief structural elements based on licks, and he keeps piling lick after lick on top of one another. If you're listening to him play over Birk's Works, you cannot possibly lose place in the form, you always know exactly where he is, and that's very much a part of the Oscar Peterson style. Somehow he seems almost like the prototypical German classical composer in his approach because it's so structured around formal development.

Herbie I cannot possibly hear enough of. He's more prone to develop ideas in a loose, organic way, and that might be what I like more. Hanging with his records is tough because the chord progressions sound cyclical, like they never resolve, so you can't always tell where in the form you are unless you're really paying attention. Herbie also has a lot of control and an unreal set of R&B chops, which helps lend a feeling of control even over something with a very outside chord progression like this:

http://www.last.fm/music/Herbie+Hancock/_/Dolphin+Dance

[bernhardtjeff]

but calling these guys lousy players? do you mean because they're not playing all the common jazz licks over the regular changes? and lousy timing? hmm.... well, watch this poorly-recorded youtube video of their "lousy timing" (the second song starts around 1:30)

I've seen that video already, because I wanted to get informed about what the fuzz is about.
And yes, especially the timing of the bass player is extraordinarily bad (same on the recording on jmeier's site). I have no idea about why he's playing in this band.
And oh well, yes, I do have an idea about "lose" timing. But that doesn't excuse plain bad timing.
Sorry.

- Sascha

edit: changed because what i wrote earlier was dumb. hope no one quoted what i wrote yet.

anyway, yeah, like was already said, i think what you're hearing as "bad timing" is really sort of a purposeful attempt to play around with the time rather than just get a groove going and stick to that. not much more to say than that.

[tapper mike]

I'm with jm on this one.

Does anyone think Keith Richards has bad timing?
Kieth Richards plays so far behind the beat he's practically on top of the next one. He uses a pull-push to create a sense of swagger.

If you've played serious blues live with the same band over the course of time everyone finds thier pocket. No one is stepping on someone else.

Miles was less concerned with beat and more concerned with conversing in Birth of Cool. When he soloed it was more akin to story telling. The pulse would change as the story evolved.

Many Chord Melody books for guitar often have sections devoted to offsetting basslines in accompanyment including http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/store/smp ... em-_-Title

Erik Turkel writes in great length about timing and metre for selected parts in his book
Arraging for Synthesists.
He sights numerous examples of Rock Pop Blues Soul and Jazz which feature utilizing metre as a push/pull in relation to timing.

Meter is as much a textural component to overall sound as is direction and voicing.

[jancivil]

to me Oscar Peterson is almost the master of a groovy jazz piano.

That tells us all we need to know about your prejudice here.

[Sascha Franck]

That tells us all we need to know about your prejudice here.

Predjudice is something entirely different.

- Sascha

[xtp]

Interesting discussion.

I have to admit I am more a fan of Swing than any other form of Jazz... but I find it quite easy to listen to free-form style Jazz as well. Though I would seldom be inspired to rush out and buy a cd of it.

I've often wondered what makes some of us able to derive entertainment from what other listeners would consider 'chaotic noise'.

I'd never heard of Cuong Vu before but quite enjoyed this, up until it kind of assembled itself towards the end that is.