Jazz guitar is harder than it looks
Created | Updated Jan 28, 2002
Im a Jazz Gutarist in the UK. One thing's for sure, you play jazz for love, not money. Musicians are often much like train spotters, although people arn't expecting it until its far too late and they're caught in the middle of a debate about whether its better to use a half-whole over an atlered dominant, or a superlocrian to play it safe? Of course, your only going to get this sort of debate if your with good musicians. If your luck is out, It'll be the age old 'who was the greatest guitarist/drummer/rock god?' and before you know it, it ahs sunken to the level of celebrity deathmatch and fingers are being waved... :-(
Jazz is different. Ok, it still has the 'wasn't so and so great in his day?' and 'Its not played like it used to be', but this is mainly from the elder generation as us youngsters are too busy trying to create whacky forms of fusion without loosing the plot, to notice much.
There are different types of musicians, most of which do indeed subscribe to the stereotypes assigned to them. There are folky, cider drinkers with long, hippy dress and hair. Rockers. Deathmetal t shirts and a tendency towards long black hair and eyeliner.
Im going to get grief for such over generalisation as this is obviously not the case for alot of guys and gels, but I am trying to prove a point about ignorance. Reporters for example (not us, obviously) are generally people with NO ideas whatsoever, and an strong ability to express them. This is the case in some musicans. Too often have I finished a song to the sound of the guitarist who was on last stating in load and confident enough voice (so he must be right, right?) , about how 'jazz is all theory and scales and technique...'.
Now, Im not disagreeing with the fact that good jazz musicians do indeed know alot of theory and scales, and posses the sort of technique that wouild sound absoulutely fantastic in the offending person's chosen genre (usually the type sought by "singer/songwriters" which has always been a sort of pop meets the sentimental or deppressed), what I am objecting to, is the idea that this makes Jazz a music with 'no ... soul, man'. Sure its not everybodies cup of tea, but nothing appeals to everyone.
The proposterous idea that it 'just has too many rules and restrictions' (when sooo much of jazz is improvised), has me furious, when I see people who decide that indeed, the guy is talking loud enough to be right, start nodding their heads in what will be a very difficult idea to uproot. Let me state here that in my humble opinion as a proffessional jazz player and an amature jazz lover (There is so much I have not yet heard), that JAZZ IS HARDER THAN IT SOUNDS. This doesnt mean you have to dislike it, just because you cant play it. All ideas welcome (preferably about this page).
Jazz is different. Ok, it still has the 'wasn't so and so great in his day?' and 'Its not played like it used to be', but this is mainly from the elder generation as us youngsters are too busy trying to create whacky forms of fusion without loosing the plot, to notice much.
There are different types of musicians, most of which do indeed subscribe to the stereotypes assigned to them. There are folky, cider drinkers with long, hippy dress and hair. Rockers. Deathmetal t shirts and a tendency towards long black hair and eyeliner.
Im going to get grief for such over generalisation as this is obviously not the case for alot of guys and gels, but I am trying to prove a point about ignorance. Reporters for example (not us, obviously) are generally people with NO ideas whatsoever, and an strong ability to express them. This is the case in some musicans. Too often have I finished a song to the sound of the guitarist who was on last stating in load and confident enough voice (so he must be right, right?) , about how 'jazz is all theory and scales and technique...'.
Now, Im not disagreeing with the fact that good jazz musicians do indeed know alot of theory and scales, and posses the sort of technique that wouild sound absoulutely fantastic in the offending person's chosen genre (usually the type sought by "singer/songwriters" which has always been a sort of pop meets the sentimental or deppressed), what I am objecting to, is the idea that this makes Jazz a music with 'no ... soul, man'. Sure its not everybodies cup of tea, but nothing appeals to everyone.
The proposterous idea that it 'just has too many rules and restrictions' (when sooo much of jazz is improvised), has me furious, when I see people who decide that indeed, the guy is talking loud enough to be right, start nodding their heads in what will be a very difficult idea to uproot. Let me state here that in my humble opinion as a proffessional jazz player and an amature jazz lover (There is so much I have not yet heard), that JAZZ IS HARDER THAN IT SOUNDS. This doesnt mean you have to dislike it, just because you cant play it. All ideas welcome (preferably about this page).
