h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

good stuff, but all the examples are from the rock business. Good though they all are, remember that of all the forms of music, jazz is probably the one most built on improvisation around a theme rather than composition, and jamming is essentially multiple players improvising together.

In fact most recorded rock music has little or no jamming in it - Page for example used to play most of his solos alone, laying down a number of tracks over the rest of the band's backing, then dropping in the one that sounded best.

All that, Shazz! @

Yeah, rock is fairly pre written... most of it's also incredibly easy to play. The same, however, does not apply to jazz in my experience, at least not on the instruments i play.

all there's SHAZZ. there is nothing close to You...@

i could suck in ANYTHING .@

This page should have had a link to the WWJ

The WWJ?

A researcher has set up a virtual "World Wide Jam" on H2G2. WWJ stands for "World Wide Jam"

~Irving

Ahh. Now it all makes sense. What's the URL?

aha - true!! it's amazing how boring rock music can be after you've grown accustomed to winging it! but it's also amazing how lacklustre jazz can be and how emotional simple rock is. trying to persuade jazz musos that they can improvise together is not always easy though!! i've always preferred it - much more exciting - rather like i've always preferred the duets in opera rather than the solo arias!

Yes. More complex does tend to be more interesting. That doesn't always make it better, but it's generally a step in the right direction.

there's also the bastard child of jazz and the father of rock to consider, the blues. Jamming the blues can go either way, you can get fairly complex or keep it extremely simple. The bonus with the blues is that either way it is emotionally rich if done well.

>>emotionally rich if done well

yes - I think the problem is that a lot of players don't realise that doing it well means making it emotionally rich (not necessarily fast, or musically clever)

the blues were never designed to be difficult, afterall. but they work. making the music so difficult that you cut people out is ok up to a point - but who are you playing it for??

Yes. It doesn't really matter who's playing, or how, it's just the music, in the end. Difficulty is relative. I learned to play Fur Elise when I was 8, and I thought is was easy then. But I still think it's a beautiful piece, even though it's incredibly simple.

not sure I agree (altho I probably misunderstood what you meant). For me, the point about blues is that its musically very simple, but all about emotion. So who's playing *is* actually the really important thing - not because they might be a virtuoso but because they should communicate how they feel, and thats a very difficult thing to do. For me, all the best artists are the ones who can make you feel something, and thats not (just) because of the music they are playing

yes - that's what i meant nj. blues in jazz, though, has been taken to extremes by bop players - who were just so technically great! The good thing about the blues was always that you could relax and not have to fight your way through a chord sequence! Thelonious Monk proved that with Blue Monk - he played every note in the chromatic scale and it still fitted!

I don't mean that who's playing doesn't matter, exactly, but whether or not that person is highly technically skilled or not. being able to convey emotion is very difficult in playing. Even more so when someone demads that you do it with twinkle twinkle little star.

You've had requests for TWINKLE TWINKLE LITTLE STAR???

No, I'm taking lessons, and at the point my teacher strated to stress expression in music(I was trying to hit the right string, but I did sound better after that) was the point at which I was playing twinkle twinkle little star.