[AndyBlackard]

I'm really a fan of bebop, r&b, rock&roll, swing, blues and contemporary sax and have been for upwards of 40 years (52 now). But I'm afraid I don't get it with respect to jazz standards. Everyone has their own tastes, I realize, and no disrepect is intended. Do some folks just enjoy the pop songs of the 1940s better than the pop songs of the 1950s-2000s, or is it simply a matter that "standards" are a lingua franca in the jazz community because they are convenient chord progressions for soloing that everyone knows?

There are specific songs that are considered standards that I really adore like Stardust, Misty, etc. but I have met other people who like everything in the Real Book and nothing else. I don't understand that perspective.

Thanks in advance.

 

[hgiles]

It's a matter of playing the great tunes that the great players played. They used standard harmonic progressions and modulations. Harmonically, they were condensed classical harmonies with pop melodies and themes, so they could appeal to the intellectual and the regular Joe.

Moreover, they lend themselves well to substitutions, extensions, alterations. Why? Because we've heard all the great jazzers do it on these tunes and it is now accepted and expected.

Modern pop tunes are hamonically simpler (generally). More groove based and/or riff based stuff. You start getting creative over an improv on this and people are going to look at you funny. Why? Because now days people want to hear pop stuff "just like the CD". How many times have you heard from a concert goer in a derogatory tone that "it didn't sound anything like the CD" ?

I feel I am a creative musician. I want to create something new, not reproduce someone else's stuff. Sure, I am playing an old, pretty, well-known, well-liked meoldy, but I aspire to do something new with it.

I like lots of other stuff, but in order to get to play at all I need to play the stuff that the jammers are playing -- Real Book Standards.

 

[Razzy]

There are a lot more than are just in the real book, too. There are several real books and several other kinds of books that haven't even come close to cataloguing all of the tunes that a lot of jazz players know/knew. For me the standards are more about gaining an appreciation and understanding of great melodies which inform my improvising and my writing. Remember too that a lot of these tunes actually have lyrics and it helps as a saxophone player to think like a vocalist.

Standards also provide an opportunity for modern jazz players to really understand basic jazz chord progressions and how to work melodies through them, before proceeding to more advanced material. They then use this as a launchpad for their writing and for altering the tunes in question.

 

[AndyBlackard]

Thanks

It's a matter of playing the great tunes that the great players played. They used standard harmonic progressions and modulations. Harmonically, they were condensed classical harmonies with pop melodies and themes, so they could appeal to the intellectual and the regular Joe.

Moreover, they lend themselves well to substitutions, extensions, alterations. Why? Because we've heard all the great jazzers do it on these tunes and it is now accepted and expected.

Modern pop tunes are hamonically simpler (generally). More groove based and/or riff based stuff. You start getting creative over an improv on this and people are going to look at you funny. Why? Because now days people want to hear pop stuff "just like the CD". How many times have you heard from a concert goer in a derogatory tone that "it didn't sound anything like the CD" ?

I feel I am a creative musician. I want to create something new, not reproduce someone else's stuff. Sure, I am playing an old, pretty, well-known, well-liked meoldy, but I aspire to do something new with it.

I like lots of other stuff, but in order to get to play at all I need to play the stuff that the jammers are playing -- Real Book Standards.

Great post. Thanks. I could think of many great modern pop songs that would fit the bill too harmonically and melodically (The Beatles, Carole King, James Taylor, The Guess Who, Todd Rundgren, David Bowie, James Brown, Lionel Ritchie, Michael Jackson, Hall and Oates, Joe Jackson, Electric Light Orchestra, etc. ) but I can see that learning how the old masters worked the old songs has its merits.

 

[AndyBlackard]

Makes sense

There are a lot more than are just in the real book, too. There are several real books and several other kinds of books that haven't even come close to cataloguing all of the tunes that a lot of jazz players know/knew. For me the standards are more about gaining an appreciation and understanding of great melodies which inform my improvising and my writing. Remember too that a lot of these tunes actually have lyrics and it helps as a saxophone player to think like a vocalist.

Standards also provide an opportunity for modern jazz players to really understand basic jazz chord progressions and how to work melodies through them, before proceeding to more advanced material. They then use this as a launchpad for their writing and for altering the tunes in question.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[cann0nba11]

Check out Herbie Hancock's recording "The New Standard", or Dave Pietro's all Stevie Wonder jazz album "Standard Wonder."

Standards are considered repertoire, just like knowing your classical etudes and repertoire. The old tunes are often well written, sound nice, and audiences appreciate them. There are plenty of newer songs that are playable, but to me Standards are 'standards' because they were the pop music of their time from radio, stage and film.

Then, you've got standards for various jazz genres like Impressions, Afro Blue, Giant Steps, or Donna Lee, Confirmation and Oleo etc.

I like twisting the old standards by re-arranging them instead of playing them straight. Eric Alexander has done this a few times, and I LOVE Wynton's album "Marsalis Standard Time."

 

[AndyBlackard]

Thanks

Check out Herbie Hancock's recording "The New Standard", or Dave Pietro's all Stevie Wonder jazz album "Standard Wonder."

Standards are considered repertoire, just like knowing your classical etudes and repertoire. The old tunes are often well written, sound nice, and audiences appreciate them. There are plenty of newer songs that are playable, but to me Standards are 'standards' because they were the pop music of their time from radio, stage and film.

Then, you've got standards for various jazz genres like Impressions, Afro Blue, Giant Steps, or Donna Lee, Confirmation and Oleo etc.

I like twisting the old standards by re-arranging them instead of playing them straight. Eric Alexander has done this a few times, and I LOVE Wynton's album "Marsalis Standard Time."

I've enjoyed that Marsalis recording for many years. S. Wonder certainly deserves the recognition. I've allways wondered if his song "Too High" was inspired by Coltrane's music, Spiral in particular.