So okay, maybe you can tell by now, I'm not the biggest fan of modern music. I mean, sure, there is some pop music I do like, but not much. But what if there were jazz musicians who made jazz versions of popular modern songs? Well, as it turns out, there are! And I like them! Jazz musicians have been covering pop songs and converting them to jazz standards for a long time. Take for example Art Tatum's "Over the Rainbow" or John Coltrane's "My Favorite Things". Both of these songs started as pop songs before they were redone as jazz songs (and some of the most famous jazz standards at that).
So here's a song you may know; the popular "Don't Stop the Music" by Rhianna. This cover, at least in my opinion is far more entertaining than the original. Jamie Cullum is singing and playing every note with passion and care. Compare that to the original in which Rhianna is casually singing out the notes behind a thumping bass with very little distinguishable key. Now I know that this may be more appealing to dance to in today's modern dance style than Cullum's version, but for pure musicianship, Cullum has Rhianna beat by a mile. And Jamie Cullum is by far not the only jazz musician who takes pop songs and jazzifies them. If you have the time, check out Brad Mehldau or The Bad Plus. Even if these may not become your favorite songs ever, they are certainly interesting twists to songs you know.
In a way, I'm somewhat curious to know what motivates these jazz musicians to cover these pop songs. In all likelihood, it is just these musicians branching out to create new forms of interesting music, but on the other hand, there may be a different reason. Check out Jamie Cullum's video again. If you look closely, you will notice that this video has over six million views, which is far more than any of his other songs. Maybe Cullum is just covering a pop song so that he is noticed by the larger pop communities that don't normally listen to jazz. It's almost like he is exercising his social capital in that he is using other people's awareness of pop music to get them to vault him higher in popularity. This is just a theory, but it would be interesting to examine closer. But for now, I'm happy as long as these incredible musicians keep making great music.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Live
There is no better way to experience than hearing it live. The experience of enjoying the professionals themselves play the music right in front of you is an unmatched experience. No matter what genre or style of music, this holds true. But that's not to say that concerts are all the same. You would be hard pressed to find a philharmonic orchestra that performs the same way as a rapper.
Last spring, I attended a jazz festival close to where I live. While there, I saw several different types of groups, from large ensembles to small combos. (One group that was particularly impressive was the Winard Harper Sextet, seen in this video filmed two months ago). Despite the differences in the style of jazz and the size of the groups, there were overarching similarities in the "concert etiquette." First of all, my friends and I were pretty much the only attendees of the festival who were over the age of ten and under the age of forty. We even had several older women tell us how nice it was to see young people come and watch jazz. During the performances, the audience was always seated and quiet, other than the short periods following the end of the song and the end of an individual's solo, when the audience would politely clap to acknowledge the soloist. Furthermore, the music was loud, but soft enough that everything could be heard with clarity.
The jazz festival was much different than the TV on the Radio concert I attended a week and a half ago. First of all, the concert was held in our college gymnasium, which may be acoustically the worst location for any musical performance. Being in the gym also meant that the majority of the people would be standing the entire time (which was about two and a half hours if you were there for the opener). Of course, this was intentional, as it allows the audience to dance and interact more than if the audience was seated. The audience was comprised of almost entirely college students (it was held on a college campus) with some locals scattered in the mix. The most noticeable difference, though, was the volume. The amps of the band were turned up so loud that it was difficult to pick out any of the individual parts other than the drums and vocals. Now I don't want to sound like an old grouch, but I would have much preferred if the band had played softer so I could actually hear the individual instruments and how they blend together. It has been shown that loud music can induce a sort of euphoria, which makes sense, but should it be at the expense of actually hearing the music?
Concerts today are treated very similarly to how social networks are treated. Previously, social networks were used as a method of "social currency," but now, social networks have become more of a form of quick entertainment. Live jazz is much more focused on the quality of the music while live modern music is focused on the entertainment and enjoyment that the music creates. It's impossible to say that one type of concert is better than the other, but the differences between the two definitely reflect the evolution of music. Who knows where live music will go next?
(Bonus clip; Herbie Hancock live with Pat Metheney playing Cantaloupe Island)
Last spring, I attended a jazz festival close to where I live. While there, I saw several different types of groups, from large ensembles to small combos. (One group that was particularly impressive was the Winard Harper Sextet, seen in this video filmed two months ago). Despite the differences in the style of jazz and the size of the groups, there were overarching similarities in the "concert etiquette." First of all, my friends and I were pretty much the only attendees of the festival who were over the age of ten and under the age of forty. We even had several older women tell us how nice it was to see young people come and watch jazz. During the performances, the audience was always seated and quiet, other than the short periods following the end of the song and the end of an individual's solo, when the audience would politely clap to acknowledge the soloist. Furthermore, the music was loud, but soft enough that everything could be heard with clarity.
The jazz festival was much different than the TV on the Radio concert I attended a week and a half ago. First of all, the concert was held in our college gymnasium, which may be acoustically the worst location for any musical performance. Being in the gym also meant that the majority of the people would be standing the entire time (which was about two and a half hours if you were there for the opener). Of course, this was intentional, as it allows the audience to dance and interact more than if the audience was seated. The audience was comprised of almost entirely college students (it was held on a college campus) with some locals scattered in the mix. The most noticeable difference, though, was the volume. The amps of the band were turned up so loud that it was difficult to pick out any of the individual parts other than the drums and vocals. Now I don't want to sound like an old grouch, but I would have much preferred if the band had played softer so I could actually hear the individual instruments and how they blend together. It has been shown that loud music can induce a sort of euphoria, which makes sense, but should it be at the expense of actually hearing the music?
Concerts today are treated very similarly to how social networks are treated. Previously, social networks were used as a method of "social currency," but now, social networks have become more of a form of quick entertainment. Live jazz is much more focused on the quality of the music while live modern music is focused on the entertainment and enjoyment that the music creates. It's impossible to say that one type of concert is better than the other, but the differences between the two definitely reflect the evolution of music. Who knows where live music will go next?
(Bonus clip; Herbie Hancock live with Pat Metheney playing Cantaloupe Island)
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
It's all about the technicalities
Now, I don't mean to be a musical snob, but in my opinion, modern music is boring. Compared to jazz, with its complex harmonies and intricate rhythms, pop music is very simple. For example, contrast John Coltrane's Giant Steps with Australian comedy group Axis of Awesome's Four Chord Song. Giant Steps is incredibly complex; it changes key ten times in the first thirteen seconds. On the other hand, the Axis of Awesome present the startling reality of the simplicity in chord structure of many pop songs. While it isn't entirely true that all of those songs played in the video were composed with the same four chords, they are far simpler. I'm not trying to say that the only good music is complex music; that is far from the truth. But something must be said for the talent required to improvise flawlessly over the chord changes in a song like Giant Steps like Coltrane did. That talent is simply not seen in today's music.
Let's take a closer look at the song above. This is a recording of Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers playing "Mosaic" recorded in 1961. The horns (Freddie Hubbard on trumpet, Wayne Shorter on tenor saxophone, and Curtis Fuller on trombone) come in accompanied by the rhythms section (Ceder Walton on piano, Jymie Merrit on bass, and Art Blakey on drums). The rhythm section quickly takes over at 0:08 and sets the tempo and energy. Freddie Hubbard enters at 0:18 with a fortepiano note (a note hit loudly and then dropped to a quieter volume) and plays with the dynamics. Shorter and Fuller join Hubbard at 0:24 to play accented chords with somewhat dissonant harmonies. Hubbard once again plays with a long sustained note at 0:29, this time using vibrato. The horns play the accented chords once again at 0:36 before entering a new section in which they play longer sustained harmonies while the rhythm section changes to an irregular triplet feel. The band repeats the first section again before entering into solos at 1:05.
Improvisation is the defining aspect of jazz, and excellent examples can be seen right here. Wayne Shorter takes the first solo, flying into passionate runs that perfectly follow the chord and rhythmic structure. Shorter's solo ends and Hubbard enters seamlessly at 1:52 with an equally impressive solo. Curtis Fuller solos at 2:37 followed by Ceder Walton at 3:22. Finally, Art Blakey begins his nearly three minute long solo at 4:10. The rhythm section reenters at 7:00 before the horns restate the original theme and end the song.
What makes this song so good (or at least in my opinion) is how technically good it is. There is a high level of energy that permeates during the entire eight minutes. The harmonies used during the head (the beginning section before the solos that is repeated at the end) are dissonant and interesting. The solos are a testament to the sheer talent of the musicians. These fundamentals make the song what it is. Similarly, effective writing also contains these fundamentals. Elements of writing like punctuation are extremely important to writing, but they are often overlooked by students today. In my opinion, modern music will never surpass jazz until musicians begin to innovate with more complexity in their music. I want to hear a pop song that uses more than four chords and has intricate rhythms. Maybe then I would be able to appreciate it a little more.
Let's take a closer look at the song above. This is a recording of Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers playing "Mosaic" recorded in 1961. The horns (Freddie Hubbard on trumpet, Wayne Shorter on tenor saxophone, and Curtis Fuller on trombone) come in accompanied by the rhythms section (Ceder Walton on piano, Jymie Merrit on bass, and Art Blakey on drums). The rhythm section quickly takes over at 0:08 and sets the tempo and energy. Freddie Hubbard enters at 0:18 with a fortepiano note (a note hit loudly and then dropped to a quieter volume) and plays with the dynamics. Shorter and Fuller join Hubbard at 0:24 to play accented chords with somewhat dissonant harmonies. Hubbard once again plays with a long sustained note at 0:29, this time using vibrato. The horns play the accented chords once again at 0:36 before entering a new section in which they play longer sustained harmonies while the rhythm section changes to an irregular triplet feel. The band repeats the first section again before entering into solos at 1:05.
Improvisation is the defining aspect of jazz, and excellent examples can be seen right here. Wayne Shorter takes the first solo, flying into passionate runs that perfectly follow the chord and rhythmic structure. Shorter's solo ends and Hubbard enters seamlessly at 1:52 with an equally impressive solo. Curtis Fuller solos at 2:37 followed by Ceder Walton at 3:22. Finally, Art Blakey begins his nearly three minute long solo at 4:10. The rhythm section reenters at 7:00 before the horns restate the original theme and end the song.
What makes this song so good (or at least in my opinion) is how technically good it is. There is a high level of energy that permeates during the entire eight minutes. The harmonies used during the head (the beginning section before the solos that is repeated at the end) are dissonant and interesting. The solos are a testament to the sheer talent of the musicians. These fundamentals make the song what it is. Similarly, effective writing also contains these fundamentals. Elements of writing like punctuation are extremely important to writing, but they are often overlooked by students today. In my opinion, modern music will never surpass jazz until musicians begin to innovate with more complexity in their music. I want to hear a pop song that uses more than four chords and has intricate rhythms. Maybe then I would be able to appreciate it a little more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)