Bilbo

Wayne and Jimmy Johnson (no relation) in the Wayne Johnson Trio. Allan Holdsworth and Jeff Berlin on 'Road Games' - the last decent thing JB did. John Scofield and Steve Swallow - play with the same guitarist for 30 years and see how good it sounds! Pat Metheny and Steve Rodby - Rodby is Metheny's nearly silent partner. His reticence is a perfect foil for the guitarist.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with this assessment of 'Giant Steps' but it is not alone. A lot of music is composed using 'artificial' stimulae e.g. tone rows are an obvious example but there are loads of other ways music has been created. Kenny Wheeler sometimes writes things and them flips them over and makes a musical palindrome. Gil Goldstein talks in his book on Jazz composing about using a skyline, for example, to inform a sequence of notes. Barrington Pheulong used the Morse code for Morse when determining the themn for the tv programme and has admitted to doing things like using the name of the murderer to inform the sequence of notes that forms the incidental themes in odd episodes. Classical composers have used church bells and marching soldiers, birdsong and 1,000 other things. Blues musicians have used train whistles. Isn't the opening theme of 'Tubular Bells' something classical played backwards. You finds your inspiration where you finds it!

[quote name='ianrunci' post='327628' date='Nov 12 2008, 02:25 PM']Don't know why everyone slags off Mustang Sally, its a classic soul tune by a classic soul singer.[/quote] Because I hear it every time I leave the house. It stopped being boring a long time ago. Then it got irritating. Now its like fingernails on a blackboard. Don't anyone play it again, please. Ever.

[url="http://www.jazzstandards.com/compositions/index.htm"]http://www.jazzstandards.com/compositions/index.htm[/url] Useful resource for anyone looking to know a bit more about the standards that feature so heavily in jazz.

[quote name='Exile252' post='327249' date='Nov 12 2008, 03:13 AM']I was thinking, the only Jazz song I really enjoyed listening to was a Jazz cover of Smells Like Teen Spirit. They had the improvising sections, but they also had a base to which they were working from, and didn't go off on weird solo tangents like they were not listening to the rest of the band.[/quote] That sucked. Big time.

[quote name='Lfalex v1.1' post='326890' date='Nov 11 2008, 03:58 PM']Is there an unwitting plug by Tolkien for a cerain brand of US bass cabs and subwoofers in that there address? Do Hobbits play short-scale basses, then?[/quote] No - its a unwitting plug for Tolkien by a certain brand of US cabs and subwoofers. Hobbits didn't have electricty. The just played halfling double basses, called single basses.

[quote name='Wil' post='326774' date='Nov 11 2008, 02:23 PM']Yeah, I don't think he was ever truely down and out. I think he did sleep in a "spike" in England and work as a dishwasher in Paris due to changing circustances, though. Coincidently, Down and Out in Paris and London is my favourite book of all time [/quote] My second favourite after 'The Hobbit'

[quote name='Jebo1' post='326695' date='Nov 11 2008, 12:59 PM']You can teach someone to play a 12 bar walking line in a few minutes that would, with some improvisation, see them through your most general of jazz forms.[/quote] Minutes to learn and a lifetime to master - what's wrong with that? [quote]... if you think that a heroin addicted Charlie Parker was planning all those substitutions, or a drunk Django was playing freely whilst calculating the changes you're a fool![/quote] The difference between a heroin addict and a non-heroin addict is the need for heroin, not the ability to think. Parker was considered to be a highly intelligent man by many who knew him. His knowledge of harmony was very advanced but his ability to function in the conventional sense was poor. Like a lot of people with that kind of focus, they are actually quite dysfunctional - I have often wondered whether Charlie Parker had Asperger's or some other autistic condition. Geroge Orwell lived rough for some time before he wrote 1984 and Animal Farm. Aleister Crowley and William S. Burroughs both used H at one time or another. The world is full of creative, intelligent people who have got hooked. As for intelligent alcoholics, where do I start...???

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='326629' date='Nov 11 2008, 11:44 AM']Jazz fans do as much damage to the genre as the music itself. You guys seem to think that there are 2 groups or people: Those who like Jazz and those that don't understand it. Wrong! There are those that (probably pretend) to like it and those that think it's utter sh*t. I'm told you can't dismiss an entire genre. But I've yet to hear a jazz song I like. I'm not getting any younger, and I just don't have time to invest in music I need to force myself to like just so I can wear a blazer over a roll-neck sweater. Its the musical equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome. You fellas have spent a long time trying to like this stuff, that you have somehow fallen in love with it. It reminds me of those annoying f***ers who recommend a film (usually something sh*t like The Beach or Fight Club). When you tell them that it was f***ing sh*t, they say"well you clearly didn't understand it". Yes I f***ing did, and I also understand that your opinion isn't worth sh*t! Most improvisation is bollocks. Improvise when writing the thing, pick the best version, and there you go, you've got your song. Quite frankly, I couldn't care what mood you're in when you play it live.[/quote] Ignoring the 87.6 generalisations you make in your post , you have to understand that music is just a thing and, like all things, is used by different people for different purposes. If you want to dance, Stravinsky is probably not going to work for you. If you want to chill, it is unlikely that you will be using Motorhead. If you want background noise, a bit of bland musak is the thing but if you want to stir some patriotic feelings in people, you get out the Elgar. Every piece of music requires something different from the listener. Same with the films you refer to. If you want mindless drivel, Indiana Jones is the man. If you want something intellectually stimulating, try something else (don't I ask mem, I liek my movies 'lightweight'). If you abhor violence, the Saw movies are a no go but, if films with animals in turn you off, then Babe is going to really get on your thrupennys. If someone recommends something, you need to decide what they are actually recommending and why rather than simply the title of the specific product (If I hear one more person say their favourite film is 'THe Shawshank Redemption', I will spit). There is s*** jazz out there (I've played hundreds of hours of it myself) but it is a high risk undertaking and that is going to happen. You aren't going to see the solos off the records, the pieces will change, the feelings that each piece creates in the listener will change everytime - that is what makes it attractive to me; ' the sound of surprise. The problem I have with most other genres is that hearing a tune played pretty much the same way everytime, using tired old cliches, is unstimulating - like reading books or watching films with the same plot over and over again. Watching angry young men (and it is mostly men) trashing their instruments and ranting about the things they care about doesn't do it for me (it did when I was 16 but no more). Straight drum beats leave me cold. Repetetive chord sequences are tired, repetetive anything is uninteresting especially repetetive set lists!- and what are 'choruses' for? repeat until hacked off?; 'yeah, you did that already, now do something else. Please!'. And as for covers bands - I HEARD IT ALREADY!!! I am passionate about jazz because it holds my attention where other musics don't; simple as. After 20+ years of playing to tiny little audiences, I know its not popular. There are more bad jazz musicians than bad rock musicians and I have played with half of them; they are bad because they don't work hard enough on what is a very difficult music to play well. That is a self fulfilling prophecy - bad musician = bad gig = disatisfied audience = people slagging off jazz = low audience levels = fewer gigs = less reasons to practice = bad musician = bad gig etc etc. But this is the bottom line for me; a neatly polished version of Mustang Sally is NOT better than bad jazz, not because it is not good, because it is not professional, not tight, not well delivered etc. It is not better because I know what's coming and don't care! I prefer jazz simply because I don't know what's coming! Not because it is difficult, elitist, 'classy', sophisticated or makes me look hard but because it keeps moving. I learned to like it organically; not by deciding one day to 'like' it, but by moving from one musician I liked to another and another and another. I 'get it' because I kept looking at it and listening to it because it excited me and warranted close attention, not so I could win at a pub quiz. Like you, BBC, I am not getting any younger but I have no time to waste listening to MORE variations of the same tired old cliches that form the basis of 95% of popular music. But that's just me

[quote name='waynepunkdude' post='326533' date='Nov 11 2008, 09:43 AM']I think Jazz as an art form takes itself WAY too seriously, I'm sure there is a place for that it's just not for me.[/quote] That could apply to any one of 100 genres - was Morrisey in it for a laugh? Leonard Cohen? Johnny Cash? Kraftwerk? Manic Street Preachers? 98% of HM? Jazz is absolutely chock full of humour but, as bit like my earlier post, if you don't get the language the humour is presented in, you'll miss it.

[quote name='Oscar South' date='Nov 10 2008, 10:04 PM' post='326337'] I think that's a pretty misguided comment, I love, listen to, play and study jazz and I certainly understand it. I also understand and enjoy many other genres equally as much, there is as much beauty in simplicity as there is in complexity, just because something is more difficult (on any level) does not make it by nature better. [/quote No argument - jazz can be simple too! Levels of 'difficulty' are irrelevant - my comment was just an observation that many musicians don't do the total listening thing, whether they are supposed to or not. It's depth that matters. Many other genres can be deep too, I have no problem acknowledging that, but most of the stuff I listened to before I got into jazz (rock, HM & prog. rock) doesn't work for me any more. It's just not very satisfying. As for players enjoying themselves more than audiences... have you ever WATtCHED any mainstream pop bands, They do like themselves, don't they

I have never heard anything by Stanley Clarke that I like. I have heard him ON things I like (early Return to Forever) but his own solo stuff leaves me cold - always has. Electric or double bass - he frequently disappoints.

Absolutely - the whole jam band think is probably accurately called jazz rock or jazz funk - using the language of rock or funk to inform your improvisations rather than the language of jazz; the process is essentialy the same and the potential for creative playing is equally high (as is the chance of falling on your a***). Early jazz rock bnads were really creative; the life-blood got sucked out of it all by some of the more commercial Kenny G, Crusaders, David Sanborn kind of material. But Medeski, Martin & Wood et al can be marvelous.

[quote name='Wil' post='325966' date='Nov 10 2008, 03:05 PM']Basically, what it boils down to is, if you don't appriciate jazz there is something wrong with you, you'll never be a great musician and you'll spend your life a mere shadow of your potential.[/quote] That's what you call defensive. Personally, my perspective is that, if you don't appreciate jazz, you are missing out on something wonderful, fresh and life affirming.

Different way of listening? How long have you got? Loosely speaking, if, say, Dave Gilmour plays the guitar solo on 'Comfortably Numb', he can pretty much guarantee what will happen behind him; the drums are pretty much set, the ryhythm is locked in, the bass notes are going to be here, here and here and the chords are the same as last time. In many rock settings, the solos are pre-determined and rehearsed to be performed 'like the record' but, even if they are improvised, it is generally on one level (NB these are simplifications and there are exceptions). When a jazz soloist is playing, they are taking part in a dialogue that is determined by their own contribution but is equally defined by those of their bandmates. If I play a phrase, the drummer may punctuate it, he may not. The piano player may echo my phrase or complete it with a phrase of his own. He may create a counterpoint; he may ignore it entirely and put in something that jars completely against it. Whatever happens, there are a complex series of choices being made as every second passes about who is playing which notes, chords scales and rhythms. A good jazz musician is listening to everyone of the musicians he is performaing with at all times, something that is actually mentally very difficult to do. A simile I have used before on this forum is it is like the difference between a speech and an conversation. One is easier to control and is pre-determined while the other can lead you almost anywhere the contributers want to take it. This is what makes jazz a high risk activity compared to most mainstream rehearsed music styles. I could go on all day about this (and probably will) but, in terms of 'a different way of listeing', I guess I mean that you are listening for something unusal instead of something familiar.

" Έχω ένα όνειρο ότι τέσσερα μικρά παιδιά μου μια ημέρα ζωντανή σε ένα έθνος όπου δεν θα κριθούν από το χρώμα του δέρματός τους, αλλά από το περιεχόμενο character." That's what jazz sounds like to you..... You don't get it because you haven't learned to hear it yet. Its not that you can't hear it; children who have no preconceptions about music react just as positively to jazz as they do anything else. But, if all you ever listen to is simple, diatonic blues-forms, you will struggle with something as complex as what Feraud is doing (alternatively, of course, it could be that it was dull!!). If you ever do get into it at any stage, it is amazing how two-dimensional all the stuff you used to like will sound. Its just a different way of listening and very rewarding. Of course, like all genres, some of it IS dull! PS the passage written in Greek above is; "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Someone that much of a beginner I would encourage to learn how to tune the instrument and then teach them some really basic bass parts to 'get them going'. I would then start to give them some basic information regarding names of strings and scales to give them something to pin them to.

Responsibly. I always tailor each lesson to the specific needs of the individual, using what motivates them to progress and tying it in with the core professional skills and knowledge. If some whats the intro to a Guns & Roses song, I will explain what key it is in and why and teach them what they want to know and why it works.

Yup. The frets will be in the wrong place.

I know that Jamerson's discography is comprehensive but is there a definitive list anywhere (Bilbo sees another opportunity to root around)? I am writing a biography on Paul Chambers and have researched his discography. It is 127 pages long and contains at least 300 lps - all within a career that lasted only 13 years. There are a lot of these guys out there; I understand that Ron Carter has done over 1,000 cds. I have over 70 cds with Dave Holland on and know that there are many more. I wonder who the most recorded bass player ever is/was? Will Lee has played with everyone but how many recordings has he done (genuine query - I know not)?

[quote name='tauzero' post='324159' date='Nov 7 2008, 01:05 PM']They nicked that idea off Jimi Hendrix. And back to the OP, it's nice to know that there's such a clear unambiguous expression as "in the pocket" which describes playing exactly on the beat either just ahead of or behind it, locked in perfectly with the drummer so you don't play exactly together but the drummer leads the bass who is leading the drummer, and now apparently you also need to have your horn on fire.[/quote] Not everything in the world can be clarified using words: Try and find a definitive explain of love? fear? elation? jazz? tomatos? that bit of skin under your nose? The written word is even worse: this doesn't work unless you actually say it out loud with the appropriate inflection.... You say tomato, I say tomato You say potato and I say potato Tomato, tomato, potato, potato Let's call the whole thing off. 'In the pocket' is just one of those things that defied clarity. But that's what makes it cool. Cool... now there's another one....

[quote name='The Funk' post='323520' date='Nov 6 2008, 04:06 PM']Ah, Bilbo. I think you got carried away in your description of what "in the pocket" means by including soulfulness. I don't think it does. Brecker was always in the pocket. Whether or not he played with any kind of soul or conveyed great emotion is not really the same question.[/quote] Fair play, TF. (But I still think Breckers pockets are a bit too tidy!!!) Simon Phillips is marvelous - does anyone remember Jon Anderson's 'Olympia' LP - some superb work from all players (inc Jack Bruce and John Giblin IIRC) but Phillips is a stand-out. Even his stuff on Michael Schenker's first LP is ground breaking rock drumming but, despite Phillips enormous skills, no-one but Bonham could have made 'Kashmir' sound like THAT! And that's what I understand as being 'in the pocket'.

[quote name='Soulfinger' post='323483' date='Nov 6 2008, 02:57 PM']Michael Brecker had everything you mentioned - soul, groove and complete mastery of the instrument. To me. he was one of the most in-the-pocket players ever.[/quote] John Coltrane was once said that evey sax player would sound like Stan Getz if they could. Brecker was undoubtedly a great player and is already sorely missed but soul? Maybe a bit but not like the great, greats. I once did a gig in Cardiff and the horn section from Lionel Hampton's big band dropped in! There were all these young guys playing theirs asses off and setting their horns on fire. Then this 60+ year old alto player got up and flattened them with one short solo that was DEEP. These young guys were SO enthralled by this older guy that they just sat there with grins on their faces. It was a real learning moment for me. I just think that, whilst Brecker was a great player, there are many that can't play nearly as 'well' as he could but can communicate more. PS - I have considerably more Brecker than Getz recordings!!

The Funk is right on the money - for you to actually play behind or ahead of the beat, you need to be sure that everyone around you knows where the beat is and manages their own contribution accordingly, not slowing down or speeding up because you are not playing metronomically! S'hard!

Its not about jazz, its about everything. I used jazz examples because I know them best but other examples were used to illustrate my point. John Bonham has nowhere near the technique of Simon Phillips but, in 'pocket' terms, Bonham was the greater player. Slash doesn't have anywhere near Malmsteen's technique but his 'groove' is much deeper. What I was referring to re: jazz was that the fact that a lot of jazz is cerebral means that it doesn't move most people. But, when a jazz performance finds the right 'pocket', it reaches more people because the 'pocket' is where its the most real. Try Lee Morgan's 'Sidewinder' or Blakey's 'Moanin''. They are great jazz but they are more than just great jazz. If its in the pocket, people respond, heads start to nod, people make eye contact with each other, even musician's feet start tapping If you don't know what 'in the pocket' means, keep playing. One day, you will find it and then you will know!