"Giant Steps" article in September BGM

[XB26354]

They're substituted chord changes - the originals are lost in Giant Steps, the point being able to create new, more interesting chord progressions.
The substitution in improvisation occurs on the original changes, implying different changes to make it more interesting. It's all just talk though - as long as it sounds OK that's all that matters.

[urb]

[quote name='thepurpleblob' post='599647' date='Sep 15 2009, 10:00 PM']Thanks for clarifying the secondary dominant thing - I get it now.

To be pedantic - I'm losing the grip on how these are substitutions if the "originals" are lost. How do you know they are substitutions at all? Why could he not just have thought "oh, that (the final) chord progression sounds good". Then someone comes along and says, "well, if you really twist it about you can see a way to describe these as substitutions over II-V-I"

Re. taking any kind of interest in this. I am the sort of person who doesn't like to not understand things. It's just the kind of sad person I am. There's a whole bunch of craziness in jazz that doesn't seem to turn up anywhere else. As I say, I'm not quite yet convinced it's all particularly musical which makes it even trickier.[/quote]

First off I think it's great that you're at least making some kind of effort in terms of 'trying' jazz - my question would be - have you ever seen/heard it played live by a world class band/musician?

If not then I suggest you do - it's the one form of music that is significantly better live than on record - there IS emotion and pasion and soul in it - and to hear a band of top flight musicians seamlessly improvising together is a thing of rare beauty. But enough already - I understand that finding a way into to appreciating this music is hard - so here's how I did it...

I was brought up listening to everything from the Beatles, to Floyd, Dylan, through to Slayer, Beastie Boys, pure pop and hip hop... but what got me into jazz was the more rock or funk influencd stuff - as there was a tangible groove that I could get into but there was still a significant amount of advanced soloing/improvising going on. And then following the musical connections between the bands - in jazz it's highly recommended that once you find a strand you like that you follow the different musicians and then listen to their projects and collaborations - it's a highly rewarding experience IMO.

One of my fave bands doing this stuff today is the amazing Garajmahal - check them out [url="http://www.garajmahal.net/"]here[/url] - their bassist Kai Eckhardt is one badass player - he also plays on this amazing John McLaughlin CD [url="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Live-at-Royal-Festival-Hall/dp/B00008MLUD"]'Live At the Royal Festival hall'[/url] - and then there's ALL of John McLaughlin's stuff - but I particularly like [url="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Que-Alegria-John-McLaughlin-Trio/dp/B00000478E/ref=pd_bxgy_m_h__img_b"]this album[/url] from around the same period - it's beautiful and has some incredible tune and bass playing on from Dominique DiPiazza. Of course you could also go back to the amazing John McLaughlin stuff like Extrapolation - from the 1970s - and to his work with Miles Davis in the 1960s - In A Silent Way is an amazing album - and then there's all the mad funky Miles stuff like On The Corner, Big Fun, Live Evil, You're Under Arrest, Decoy and Tutu - to name but a few!

This has relatively little to do with chord substitutions or Giant Steps changes - it's just about incredible, profound and deeply meaningful music that was made with total conviction and passion and not with a clinical, over intellectualised approach - it's stuff that lasts and rewards you time and again everytime you listen to it - like all great music (in any genre) should.

Hope that helps - please ask if you need any more recommendations

Cheers

Mike

[Major-Minor]

OK let's just try to find the very essence of jazz (in all its forms):
Putting aside for the moment all the recorded jazz, the fundamental aspect of the performance of this music is that it is "of the moment", it is ephemeral, it is a unique musical moment, never to be repeated......

If we compare lets say classical music to jazz (my 2 predominant areas of expertise):

A classical performance is centred around the composer's ideas and wishes. The performers interpret the written score to the best of their ability. Yes they can make small adjustments to tempo, to phrasing, to dynamics ... but essentially one performance of a work will sound pretty similar to another.
A jazz performance is centred on the PLAYERS themselves. They are the creative lifeblood of the music. It will be a unique musical moment. The same written notes and chord sequence will be entirely different in the hands of different musicians. The players themselves will carve and mould the outcome on the fly. And it will be a different performance every time they play the same tune/sequence.

A classical musician knows exactly how long the piece they are playing will last (give or take a second or two) because it has been practiced and rehearsed to perfection.
A jazz musician has no idea how long their piece will last, it can go in any direction, the interplay between the musos determining the outcome.

In a classical performance, each player has a good knowledge of the parts that all the other players will produce.
In a jazz performance, the players only know the basis upon which the other players are working, they have no idea what each other will play, and this gives the music its vitality, its uniqueness.

When a listener goes to a classical concert, they already know what they are going to hear, indeed they probably chose this particular concert on the basis of the programme.
When a listener goes to a jazz gig, they will have little or no idea what tunes will be played, but they will have chosen this gig because they want to hear a particular player or group of players, and they know they will hear a unique, never to be repeated performance.

Because there are (and have been) many thousands of jazz musicians since this music emerged, its impossible to say that jazz is this, or jazz is that, because every participant brings his or her own preferences and styling to their improvising. There are simply too many "voices" in the world of jazz to make bold statements like "such and such a band is not jazz". If those musos are bringing a freshness to each performance because of its openness to creativity, then we could say that it is jazz.

However there are certain stylistic aspects that are prevalent in what is universally accepted as jazz:

Jazz music tends to be rhythm based - there is usually some form of pulse in the majority of the music.
Harmonically this music tends to be deeper and richer than the 3 or 4 note chords used in pop and rock styles. The use of dissonance and "tension and release" are common.
The music is predominantly instrumental in nature.
The use of dynamics varies hugely across this genre, but is more common than in rock/pop.

One more point:
Due to its very nature, a jazz performance is not always a success. Players can try something, trying to push their own boundaries, and it may or may not work. This is for many jazzers the exciting thing about improvising. Great music can happen - or maybe not ! But the moment is gone, and we move on in the hope of creating some magical moment in time.

I know some forum members will disagree with my thoughts here - so let's have a heated debate !!

The Major

[BottomEndian]

[quote name='Major-Minor' post='599979' date='Sep 16 2009, 10:56 AM']OK let's just try to find the very essence of jazz (in all its forms):...[snip][/quote]
Major, that's the best explanation I've ever seen of what jazz actually [b]is[/b]. Thank you!

[urb]

[quote name='Major-Minor' post='599979' date='Sep 16 2009, 10:56 AM']I know some forum members will disagree with my thoughts here - so let's have a heated debate !![/quote]

[alexclaber]

I'm no hardcore jazzer but my thoughts would be that if you're trying to discover jazz, start with that which is closest to your current tastes - so there's some great jazz-hop out there that crosses quite a lot of lines, a few really intense fusion records like Mahavishnu Orchestra's first two albums, Billy Cobham's Spectrum, some accessible funk related stuff like Headhunters or the more out there Thrust or yet more crazy Miles Davis's On The Corner.

I don't like smooth-jazz generally, it smacks of breakfast TV saxophone cheese and is deeply uncool and lacking the raw edge that makes jazz great. From another direction, big band stuff like the incredible Sinatra At The Sands (with the Count Basie Orchestra) is seriously hard swinging but lacking the more challenging harmony of bebop etc.

Alex

[alexclaber]

One of the greatest jazz fusion tracks ever and the first jazz recording that really captivated me:



What say you?

Alex

[urb]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='600157' date='Sep 16 2009, 01:18 PM']I'm no hardcore jazzer but my thoughts would be that if you're trying to discover jazz, start with that which is closest to your current tastes - so there's some great jazz-hop out there that crosses quite a lot of lines, a few really intense fusion records like Mahavishnu Orchestra's first two albums, Billy Cobham's Spectrum, some accessible funk related stuff like Headhunters or the more out there Thrust or yet more crazy Miles Davis's On The Corner.

I don't like smooth-jazz generally, it smacks of breakfast TV saxophone cheese and is deeply uncool and lacking the raw edge that makes jazz great. From another direction, big band stuff like the incredible Sinatra At The Sands (with the Count Basie Orchestra) is seriously hard swinging but lacking the more challenging harmony of bebop etc.

Alex[/quote]

+1 - Smooth Jazz = The Devil's own lift music...

[Bilbo]

[quote name='Major-Minor' post='599979' date='Sep 16 2009, 10:56 AM']Because there are (and have been) many thousands of jazz musicians since this music emerged, its impossible to say that jazz is this, or jazz is that, because every participant brings his or her own preferences and styling to their improvising. There are simply too many "voices" in the world of jazz to make bold statements like "such and such a band is not jazz". If those musos are bringing a freshness to each performance because of its openness to creativity, then we could say that it is jazz.[/quote]

Only up to a point, Major (although no one will agree where that point is). Improvisation exists in many genres not just jazz so to say that anything that is improvised in the way you describe is jazz is too simplistic.

[quote name='Major-Minor' post='599979' date='Sep 16 2009, 10:56 AM']However there are certain stylistic aspects that are prevalent in what is universally accepted as jazz:

Jazz music tends to be rhythm based - there is usually some form of pulse in the majority of the music.
Harmonically this music tends to be deeper and richer than the 3 or 4 note chords used in pop and rock styles. The use of dissonance and "tension and release" are common.
The music is predominantly instrumental in nature.
The use of dynamics varies hugely across this genre, but is more common than in rock/pop.[/quote]

We probably agree on far more than we don't. The best definition I ever heard is credited to various people, including Louis Armstrong; 'if you have to ask, you'll never know'

My point is simple: its not random. Ever. If Coltrane played 'random' notes on Giant Steps its would not be the classic it is. If you can't hear it, fine, but its not random. Its like any dialogue or conversation. It requires a knowledge of syntax, sentence construction, logical argument etc; it develops in the moment. If it was random, the cheese fleck party rhumba wet the floogy plim plim and then where would we be? .

[Major-Minor]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='600366' date='Sep 16 2009, 03:49 PM']Only up to a point, Major (although no one will agree where that point is). Improvisation exists in many genres not just jazz so to say that anything that is improvised in the way you describe is jazz is too simplistic.



We probably agree on far more than we don't. The best definition I ever heard is credited to various people, including Louis Armstrong; 'if you have to ask, you'll never know'

My point is simple: its not random. Ever. If Coltrane played 'random' notes on Giant Steps its would not be the classic it is. If you can't hear it, fine, but its not random. Its like any dialogue or conversation. It requires a knowledge of syntax, sentence construction, logical argument etc; it develops in the moment. If it was random, the cheese fleck party rhumba wet the floogy plim plim and then where would we be? .[/quote]
Bilbo - you are right of course to point out the limitations of my simplistic statement that if music is improvised, it can be classed as jazz. But that's why I pointed out the "universally accepted stylistic aspects" that help define jazz (pulse/harmony/dynamics etc).

Of course, improvisation is a major part of Asian Classical music (for instance) but the difference is that in this tradition, the concept of even the most basic harmony is anathema. Actually its quite easy for a jazz musician to sit-in in this context as long as he/she thinks in terms of the set scales (ragas) and doesn't wander off harmonically. I've worked extensively with Indian Carnatic musicians and they have a much more flexible approach to tempo than we do in jazz. If you tried to keep a steady pulse with these musos you would soon be "out".

Thinking about rhythm - "swing" is such a misunderstood word, I hardly dare use it ! But lets just say that a lot of the music that originated in the jazz and bebop eras is based, rhythmically speaking, on that wonderfully fluid triplet-based feeling that we loosely call swing. It doesn't appear in any other type of music - in many ways it defines the jazz sound.
But its not the only rhythmic device used in the jazz world - far from it in fact. But "pulse" or continuous regular tempo is nearly always involved in a jazz performance.

Actually Bilbo, I've done some (forgettable) jazz gigs where I'm convinced some players WERE using random notes - but we'll gloss over that. You are right, good improvisation is never random. A fluent player will choose every note for the emotional or physical impact those notes will have, whether it be concordant or discordant, relaxed or tensed, heart-wrenching or brutal.

And that's another good word to bring to the party - FLUENCY. A jazz musician will know their instrument inside out, will know the effect of every scale and arpeggio and how these notes can be overlaid against the underlying harmony to create the soundscape they desire.

So Bilbo - when are you going to invite me to your cheese fleck party to do a rhumba ? I promise not to wet the floogy !

Plim Plim

The Major

[lowdown]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='600157' date='Sep 16 2009, 01:18 PM']From another direction, big band stuff like the incredible Sinatra At The Sands (with the Count Basie Orchestra) is seriously hard swinging but lacking the more challenging harmony of bebop etc.
Alex[/quote]

I was listening to that Album today, Great.
But there is some serious close harmony going down in the Sax section.
Great arranging.

Garry

Edited September 16, 2009 by lowdown

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='600157' date='Sep 16 2009, 01:18 PM']... the [b]incredible[/b] Sinatra At The Sands (with the Count Basie Orchestra) is seriously hard swinging ...[/quote]
That album is incredible.

[Bilbo]

[quote name='Major-Minor' post='600684' date='Sep 16 2009, 08:24 PM']Actually Bilbo, I've done some (forgettable) jazz gigs where I'm convinced some players WERE using random notes - but we'll gloss over that.[/quote]

Playing jazz is a high risk undertaking but, like pop music, some people get the superficialities and go with it. I have heard (and played with) some small groups that are well intentioned but fundamentally dreadful.


[quote name='Major-Minor' post='600684' date='Sep 16 2009, 08:24 PM']And that's another good word to bring to the party - FLUENCY. A jazz musician will know their instrument inside out, will know the effect of every scale and arpeggio and how these notes can be overlaid against the underlying harmony to create the soundscape they desire.[/quote]

Agreed but when does someone become a 'jazz musician? Is it after they have developed this fluency or while they are still developing it? I think, for me, one of the great things that jazz allows is for individuals to develop their own voice (that is one of the great differences between jazz and classical). So a guitar player like Jim Hall or Bill Frissel, who cannot 'burn' like Coltrane or Brecker, can still be a credible force in the music. But I think you are absolutely right when you say that a jazz musician needs to understand the intricacies of the music he or she is playing. Busking it without that knowledge may have been possible in the early days of trad etc but busking against Airegin or Lush Life or UMMG or Joy Spring etc would be all but impossible.

[mcgraham]

[quote]So a guitar player like Jim Hall or Bill Frissel, who cannot 'burn' like Coltrane or Brecker, can still be a credible force in the music.[/quote]

+1

Great point. Great jazz musicians are those who can express themselves when playing. Speed and technical ability are simply the means to an end, and not the end in itself. However, what it means to 'express' oneself may not always be accessible or obvious to everyone. I would supposit that good jazz is made by those who want to play something as they feel it, and are not wholly directed by ego or adhering to what they think they should be playing. If you can 'get that' from certain pieces, then I think you're doing well!

Mark

P.S. Much jazz seemed random to me at first, (Giant Steps included), but after leaving the jazz I didn't 'get' for a while, and growing as a musician, I gained a real appreciation for what was going on once I came back to it.

[Major-Minor]

[quote name='mcgraham' post='601129' date='Sep 17 2009, 10:58 AM']Great point. Great jazz musicians are those who can express themselves when playing. Speed and technical ability are simply the means to an end, and not the end in itself. However, what it means to 'express' oneself may not always be accessible or obvious to everyone. I would supposit that good jazz is made by those who want to play something as they feel it, and are not wholly directed by ego or adhering to what they think they should be playing. If you can 'get that' from certain pieces, then I think you're doing well![/quote]
+1

The one word we have not mentioned here is lyricism. Personally, I warm to any jazz soloist who displays a lyrical approach. One who tells a story, ebbs and flows, uses dynamics, builds to a climax. I'm not a fan of the ego-driven note cruncher who churns out endless riffs and phrases all at the same dynamic level with no direction or structure.

I played a gig with trumpeter Gerard Prescensor last year and he embodies everything I like in a jazz soloist. So easy to play with because you can sense the direction, feel the flow. He reacts to the sounds around him and engages with the other players and of course he wowed the punters. He is in perfect technical control of his instrument but has the confidence to know he doesn't need to prove it.

Also played with pianist Julian Joseph. What a tour-de-force that guy is ! And his music is not easy. Unusual chord sequences in keys like Gbminor with lots of odd-meter grooves. But again, one sensed that he was in total control of the band, leading it wherever he wished, yet reacting to ideas from within, rhapsodic in his soloing, with fearless expeditions into uncharted territory. God, I was knackered by the end ! Never sweated so much in all my life !

The Major

[Bilbo]

Agreed but again with qualification (or hair splitting, whatever you prefer). I think 'lyrical' is a subjective concept. One of my favourite 'lyrical' tracks is 'Emperor Jones' off Joe Lovano's 'Landmarks' cd but I acknowledge that some may think it isnt 'lyrical. You can sample the track here - let me know what you think. I think its bone chillingly beautiful.

[url="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Landmarks-Joe-Lovano/dp/B000005HGU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1253200404&sr=8-1-catcorr"]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Landmarks-Joe-Lova...;sr=8-1-catcorr[/url]

[Major-Minor]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='601069' date='Sep 17 2009, 09:40 AM']Agreed but when does someone become a 'jazz musician? Is it after they have developed this fluency or while they are still developing it? I think, for me, one of the great things that jazz allows is for individuals to develop their own voice (that is one of the great differences between jazz and classical).[/quote]
I think one is a jazz musician the moment you pick up your instrument and play some notes straight from your head without thinking them through first or reading off a page. Its then a very long and arduous road to becoming a good jazz muso or even just a competent one. But we all have to start somewhere.

With some of my orch colleagues (the few jazz oriented ones amongst us) I sometimes do jazz/improv workshops in colleges and schools. Its always interesting to see how kids, who can play a bit, really struggle to get over that first hurdle - to play notes without written music. And its such a joy to see them when they succeed.

One little lad (playing tenor horn I seem to remember) was in tears because, when it was his turn to try to improvise over a blues groove (we had given them all 3 or 4 notes to play with), he just couldn't do it. We took a break from the session, and took him aside and talked quietly to him, building his confidence, getting the adrenalin pumping etc etc.
When we started the session again, he blew a few notes, realised he COULD do it, and off he went - no stopping him !
The smile on his face said it all ! He was a jazz muso from then on - maybe not a very good one ! but that doesn't matter, the fact is he could play from within, create his own music, we had freed up the constraints that the music education system so often places on our aspiring musicians.

The Major

[Zombywoof]

I was going to say something really profound but I've lost track of this thread!!!!

[Bilbo]

[quote name='Zombywoof' post='601423' date='Sep 17 2009, 04:24 PM']I was going to say something really profound but I've lost track of this thread!!!![/quote]

Just make something up on the spot

[Major-Minor]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='601417' date='Sep 17 2009, 04:15 PM']Agreed but again with qualification (or hair splitting, whatever you prefer). I think 'lyrical' is a subjective concept. One of my favourite 'lyrical' tracks is 'Emperor Jones' off Joe Lovano's 'Landmarks' cd but I acknowledge that some may think it isnt 'lyrical. You can sample the track here - let me know what you think. I think its bone chillingly beautiful.

[url="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Landmarks-Joe-Lovano/dp/B000005HGU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1253200404&sr=8-1-catcorr"]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Landmarks-Joe-Lova...;sr=8-1-catcorr[/url][/quote]
That's a really lovely track. Who are the other players ? The bass sounds gorgeous !

PM coming soon !

The Major

[Zombywoof]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='601425' date='Sep 17 2009, 04:26 PM']Just make something up on the spot [/quote]

scooby-doo whaaaaaaaa dooop dooooody bahh bahhhhhhhhh frump bahh widdy wahhhhhhhhh

[Bilbo]

[quote name='Major-Minor' post='601428' date='Sep 17 2009, 04:34 PM']That's a really lovely track. Who are the other players ? The bass sounds gorgeous ![/quote]

Its Marc Johnson on bass, Kenny Werner, piano, John Abercrombie (guitar) and Bill Stewart on drums (the first time I heard him).

Johnson's bass is beautiful. I saw him with John Taylor and Joey Baron several years ago and he did the most glorious bowed bass solo I have ever heard in my life but what I loved the most was the fact that he sounded exactly the same in real life as he does on record only more !! Apparently, his bass was made whilst Bach was still alive....