Blues/Jazz

File: cornbread.jpg (131KB, 1088x1070px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1088x1070px

>>68311585
tried to start a jazz thread twice so i will cont.

>>68311666
Thanks anon. But with that 666 all you're proving is nigger music is satanic.

>>68311687
sometimes you gotta dance with the devil to get out of hell

>>68311666
Also, what albums/songs you think are pretty similar in tone to those aforementioned

>>68311707
miles davis - on green dolphin street
art blakey - moanin
donald byrd - secret love
jimmy smith - when i grow too old to dream
lee morgan - ceora
dave brubeck - take five
john coltrane - in a sentimental mood
charles mingus - goodbye porkpie hat
wayne shorter - footprints

"In a sentimental mood" is the shit. I like playing it with my harmon during my combo. Chet Baker's version is kinda shit though

File: 147489a.jpg (46KB, 512x526px)

46KB, 512x526px

>>68311908
do you like fusion?
try listening to surucucu off this album

>>68311944
Kinda reminds me of Bitches Brew. What instrument do you play?

File: fa014051.jpg (130KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 600x600px

>>68311987
Bitches Brew is also fusion (im not the same guy btw

I recommend listening to pic related, it's a personal favourite

>>68311987
would you believe me if i said sitar

File: IMG_4553.jpg (550KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 1280x1280px

>>68311585
listened to this for the first time tonight
top notch, lads

>>68312179
GREAT !!! album.

Miles Davis' dark magus / on the corner have left an impression me recently.

>>68312179
el daoud really did that

>>68312365
did what?

>>68312256
I've been really digging Gerry Mulligan's Night Lights, but i'm a sucker for anything coooooool

>>68312179
it sounds weird now, but this was the album that got me into jazz

File: -attitude.jpg (26KB, 320x263px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 320x263px

>>68312385
THAT henny

>>68312405
>Gerry Mulligan's Night Lights

You'd love Bill Evans. Played piano for davis during the recording of Kind of Blue

File: R-3542623-1400157221-3347.jpg (13KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x300px

been listening a lot of Ryo Fukui and especially Mellow Dream. anything similar? recommends? where to go from here?

Quick question, what exactly is bebop? Is it basically jazz records without a singer and more focused on the instrumentals, whereby everyone just take turns soloing?

Is Bill Evans's album Blue in green, or pat martino's Coming and Going, or Kind Of Blue considered bebop? If not, what are they considered since they don't have vocals in them?

What is jazz with vocals called? Just jazz?

>>68313818
Bebop was a style of jazz developed in the mid 40's around the time that big band jazz was declining. It's generally a small band sound, where the musicians solo over very fast chord changes. It can sometimes involve a vocalist, but usually doesn't.

Pretty much all jazz that came after bebop was heavily influenced by it - the most dominant styles of jazz around the fifties were hard bop (a slightly less extreme version of bebop with some influence from soul and gospel in the use of chords) and cool jazz, which was basically a reaction to bebop, but contrary to the name was often played at a pretty hot pace and at least at first was played by bebop veterans.

After that, in the sixties, a lot of jazz would generally be called "post-bop" in that isn't quite bebop but did expand on some of its ideas. Kind of Blue is a good example of this - Miles was right there when bebop and hard-bop started but with that album he was heading more towards the use of modes rather than chordal improvisation.

Charlie Parker is considered the prophet of bebop (and of "modern jazz" which was basically the term used at the time for bebop and all that followed it) and along with Dizzy Gillespie and Miles recorded some of the template recordings for the genre. Such as this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okrNwE6GI70

>>68313818
Also jazz with vocals is just called vocal jazz, but there are as many different kinds of jazz with vocals as without. It's not like the genre is defined by whether or not there's a vocalist.

>>68314054

So would Bill Evan and Pat Martino be considered bebop musicians? Because fuck me their stuff is complicated as hell even though there aren't insane chord changes going on.

>>68314263
Both might be called post-bop. Bill Evans is usually called modal jazz, though, or cool jazz.

>>68314263
It's not to do with how complicated it is, it's about the structure of the music. As the poster above said, Bill Evans work is probably best categorised as post bop. I wouldn't call anything he did cool jazz though, and though he did sometimes play in a modal style he just as often didn't.

For a bebop pianist, listen to a track like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uon2Gu6jgf8

Pat Martino was most definitely a post-bop musician, venturing close to avant-garde jazz.

>>68314487
So what is post-bop then? Is it bebop inspired jazz but without the crazy structures of bebop?

Can you recommend any good bebop and post-bop albums primarily geared towards the guitarist or the pianist?

>>68314958
If you like Kind of Blue you might dig Idle Moments by Grant Green.

>>68315035

Would that be considered post-bop or bebop?

File: cover.jpg (40KB, 358x317px)

40KB, 358x317px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am0GP6CZgLo

I'm seeing them live in a week.

>>68315626
That would be considered modal jazz and hard bop.

>>68315817

What would standards like

I Remember Clifford, Blue In Green, Oleo, So What, Stella By Starlight and How Insensitive be considered in terms of jazz subgenres?

Sorry I'm quite new to jazz..

>>68315856
I guess it depends on the artists performing the standard.

am i the only one not liking miles?

>>68315965
Miles has performed in a large number of genres and styles. I don't think you can hate his discography as a whole.

>>68315949

So whether a standard is considered bebop or not is largely determined by the rendition of it, rather than the structure itself?

>>68316137
That's what I think.

>>68316137
I'd say that you're probably right, since, for example, Stella by Starlight is a mid-40s big band thing and How Insensitive is a mid-60s Jobim composition.

Jazz standards that are primarily considered bebop standards tend to be reharmonizations of older standards, e.g. Groovin' High (Whispering), Ornithology (How High the Moon), Scrapple from the Apple (Honeysuckle Rose and I Got Rhythm). The most well-known are mainly attributable to just a few characters, such as Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie.

But every standard can be reinterpreted a thousand ways.

>>68316435

Another question, why is it so popular to play standards? Why don't more musicians write their own tunes?

>>68316505
Because the composition itself is relatively unimportant if your primary focus is on improvisation. It just provides you a skeletal structure to project your own personality and technique on. Many Jazz standards (particularly pre-bebop) were written as songs with lyrics and a vocal melody, etc. In the bebop era, these were largely taken as a basis and then made more harmonically interesting with reharmonization to facilitate more complicated improvisational frameworks.

If your intention is primarily to improvise, and pick up playing with a group of musicians you may or may not have met before, the best way to do this is to play standards. The assumption is that everyone will know them well enough to perform adequately in jam-type settings. When a group of jazz musicians is more permanent, they tend to write more of their own songs. Or, sometimes, jazz composers come along.

>>68316505
Its hard to even know where to begin answering that. It's partly because historically, record producers wanted recognisable tunes in order to help sell records. Partly because jazz is more about improvisation than composition. Partly because it's a genre that arose out of late night jam sessions, which required everyone to be familiar with the same things.

It's a bit of an odd question though. You may as well ask "Why is it so popular to play original tunes in rock music - why don't more bands play covers?" It is because it is, that's just one of the features of the genre.

Also worth mentioning that nowadays there is a lot more emphasis on original tunes in jazz anyway, and it's been leaning that way - especially in certain jazz scenes - since the 60's.

>>68316832
>nowadays there is a lot more emphasis on original tunes
Personally I think this has a lot to do with the market environment for Jazz now compared to Jazz in the 1950s. Back then, in a decent size city you had clubs hiring music three or four nights a week. Not everyone was going to make those gigs but damned if you weren't gonna get paid because a saxophonist didn't show. Just get a different sax player. Or X club calls you up and says "we need someone this night" so you call up three random guys to play it with you. But when you interchange band members like that, you can't really be turning around on the bandstand and going "ok here's my original tune the chords go Bb7 - Adim..." etc, so you've got to base things around song forms "rhythm changes in G" or "blues in Eb," or you have to say "How high the moon."

And as every bar gigging musician knows, playing recognizable songs = better tips. Most standards back then were derived from recognizable pop tunes, since big band jazz was a big part of popular music.

Now, Jazz guys mostly don't play the club circuit except in real big cities, but they don't usually hire four nights a week. A lot of full-time guys make more money playing the festival circuit and teaching on the side, meaning they set up with consistent bands since the schedules are less hectic and subject to change. So, they have the lineups capable of focusing on new tunes, since they play together a lot and have the practice time, and there really isn't much motivation to fill an album with standards. i suppose live they still have to play standards to appease the jazz aficionados, but by and large few people recognize the standards anyway. So might as well write what you want. Most of the benefits of standards are gone in that context.

>>68316948
Good post.

Plus there's the fact that there's probably more money these days in writing your own tunes. Back in the day it was worth it (for the label) to take the hit of having to pay royalties if the single sold five times as much due to recognisability. Whereas nowadays jazz sells fuck all no matter what, so you don't want that extra expense.

Also a lot of recording sessions back in the 50's & 60's were no different to the club nights you describe - just whoever could make it on the day banging out tunes in not much more time than it would take to play them live.