FREE CONTENT AAJ Live | RSS

 

Date:	14-May-1998 12:27:07
From:	Chris Hoard (hoard@apc.net)
	Is a standard just a standard? Or can a standard only be rendered appropriately by someone like Wynton Marsalis or Keith Jarrett? What about Weather Report's "Birdland," -- is it just a modern standard from the "fusion era," or is it something other than a jazz standard? Or is it a jazz influenced instrumental pop classic, in the same category as "The Hustle?" How do you define what's a standard in jazz, and specifically with fusion, which tunes and composers have achieved a "fusion standard?"

 

Date:	14-May-1998 13:58:23
From:	Paul Abella (Pabella3@aol.com)
	Well, if we're going to talk fusion, we need to first define fusion. If it is just the marriage of Jazz and Rock, i.e. Weather Report or Mike Stern, then that's one set of rules. If however, fusion is the modern marriage of jazz and any other outside source, that certainly broadens things a little bit, doesn't it? But the question is "Do fusion standards pack the same wallop as the early 20th century standards?" Well, there are certainly less of them. Ones that come to mind are Birdland, Chameleon, In a Silent Way, Sanctuary, Spain, 500 Miles, Captain Marvel, possibly Some Skunk Funk or Rock-it, and not too many others. These are all fabulous tunes (especially Spain). The biggest problem that happens with that question is that those "standards" we so often speak of were legitimate pop tunes, and nowadays, if anyone were to play a Nirvana songbook, they'd be laughed off the stage, no matter how good the thing was, and no matter how much it swung. It comes down to the fact that we must play by a different set of rules than Charlie Parker did. That probably confuses more than it helps, but it's probably a great conversation starter... Keep Your Ears Open, Paul

 

Date:	16-May-1998 02:15:35
From:	rob craven (rcrave@webtv.net)
	no.

 

Date:	18-May-1998 13:29:47
From:	Chuck Mangione (cmange@jazz.com)
	Hey, Rob, care to elaborate a little here...a simple "no" is quite classy, but the truth is that it really does not add to this discussion, now does it? As far as I am concerned, the whole issue of standards tends to bring about much confusion. What are we measuring things against? Jazz purists will more than likely argue that Fusion is incoherent, while Fusion adventurist will argue Jazz purists are narrow-minded. The truth (at least as I view it) is that each artist and its genre has standards of its own, and comparing one with another is (at the risk of sounding overtly cliche)"comparing apples and oranges"...hey, each makes a tasty juice!

 

Date:	18-May-1998 23:31:44
From:	scoobs
	Music is music, it all came from the same place. Whether you listen to Weather Report or Charlie Parker, everthing is everything......its all how you like it, everyones gonna have an opinion, noone is right or wrong.......

 

Date:	19-May-1998 13:49:01
From:	William Gulley (gulleyw@smtpgtwy.sad.usace.army.mil)
	I guess that it's okay to engage in these theoretical discussions about what amounts to "what is and what isn't", but from a practical standpoint, what is boils down to is this: there are only two types of music, good and bad; and that's for the listener to determine. l

 

Date:	19-May-1998 15:11:41
From:	sal weir (salweir@aol.com)
	Yo, Chuck, "apples and oranges"? Dude! Well, as cliches go, I guess you got a good one. I side with NO. A standard for one person is apple sauce to another. (cliche?) Well, I'll just come out and say it this way: Miles was a great musician, one of the 20th century's best, but after SKETCHES he went from good music to bad music. Fusion is mediocre. Bop has not been surpassed, in part because the goal changed: Bop continued the idea that a musician can experiment but the focus must remain on the audience, while fusion falls into the camp of the listener be damned as long as the musician is experimenting. After Bird and Monk it's been largely downhill. There are good musicians around, yes, but innovators who further the music and not their ego or contract? I don't know of them.

 

Date:	21-May-1998 03:49:15
From:	Paul Abella (Pabella3@aol.com)
	Not to get into any huge arguments or anything, but a few points to address... 1) whoever mentioned the old Duke Ellington quote that there are only two types of music; that which is good and that which is bad was right on the mark. Sanctuary, Spain, Grow Your Own and Emergency are all brilliant tunes and being that they fall under the title "fusion" is all that much better for the art form. Well, yes, the fusion fans out there have to cop to albums like "Heavy Metal BeBop", but they also get to claim ownership of albums like Light as a Feather and Keith Jarrett and Gary Burton's duet album. 2) To say that fusion is all bad is all wrong. Not all jazz after 1963 is bad, dammit!! If it was what reason would I have to be a jazz musician, or what reason would there be to attempt to keep the music alive? There would be none, and I'm sickened by those who say that jazz has been all downhill since Bird. Yes, Bird was the greatest alto player of all time, hands down. But we're supposed to disregard everyone afterward? What happens if you end up discouraging the guy who could outblow Bird, Sal? (and by the way, Miles Smiles was a much more timeless effort than anything put out from the bop era, and it was post SKETCHES) 3) I guess what I'm trying to say is an expansion of what I tried to articulate earlier, that although there are not nearly as many standards from the fusion era as there are from the "tin pan alley" era, those standards that do exist are just as good (and in some cases, better) than their older counterparts. 4) finally, because once again I'm getting longwinded, the older (and usually rather myopic) jazz fans need to realize that a younger musician like myself need to play music that is more relavant to us than the tunes of Cole Porter and George Gershwin if you want the music to stay fresh and interesting. If that means playing "Do Like Eddie" you'll just need to deal with it. Keep Your Ears Open, Paul

 

Date:	22-May-1998 08:25:00
From:	jim smith (smithj'PBS.PORT.AC.UK)
	Does it matter. Lets all keep buying the CD/TAPES/RECORDS and help keep the people who make and bring our music to us fans especially those like me who is musically illiterate,but know what I LIKE,and lets leave any judging to which is and is'nt to the end of the 21st Centry.The jury should stay out.

 

Date:	22-May-1998 16:46:38
From:	Chip Riedeburg (chip_riedeburg@mail.agr.state.nc.us)
	Let's face it, the public in general determines what becomes a standard in all types of music, not the musicians. The Ella, Sinatra, Basie, Ellington standards are frequently requested by young folks I play for and I never (or almost never) get requests for Charlie Parker's stuff. I think the standards from the 30's and 40's have with stood the test of time (3 generations so far).

 

Date:	23-May-1998 22:40:51
From:	Karen Angela Moore (mooretunes@aol.com)
	Jazz has been a largely neglected genre for a long time. It is starting to change in some ways...The fact that it's been taken under the wing of some major academic institutions is a double edged sword! All this perfect training and then what...not many places to play, and not many record labels or radio stations to take it to the next level of exposure. Studio work and conservatory work only gets part of what jazz is or can be. Playing with and off of your fellow musicians is where it's at. I'm a singer and a writer. I love the standards because I gravitate to lyrics and melodies. But you know the great thing about jazz is that every instrument is as important as the lead vocalist's voice. And the fact is that there are songs of great merit being written today that certainly should become standards. One difference today is that theater and film are NOT doing productions that feature popular songs of the day as was done in the past...and as we all know, there are so many choices for time and places to spend dollars that music is competing with things that never existed before. I really believe that we have to begin again to bring the music to the audiences. Get out and play and promote. Tackle radio on a more personal basis and continue to get the word out. Jazz is an education in itself. If we want to expand our audience we've got to get them to where we are...and they don't know where that is! YIKES - you can't expect Joe Public to grab onto acid or fusion if it's their first exposure! There's room for all styles if we all believe that different listeners have different levels of understanding. SORRY - I guess I got on a soapbox!!!!

 

Date:	29-May-1998 13:25:18
From:	Bill Jackson (wlj@rfc.comm.harris.com)
	Let us go back to defining standard. In a word or two a standard is "Something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example (Webster)". So the standard of yesterday can be the standard of today or it maybe a new standard set by custom, authority or general consent. I'm with Chuck on the comparison. You can say the new music is not as good as the old music. That your standard. Are you looking at it from a technical or from a pure enjoyment standpoint. I believe all of us have certain bias, whether learned through experience or taught. It just happens that what is available and what we hear or play overlaps with others. And so this group gets to say I'm setting a standard, because we like this music for whatever reason. Jazz is a sub group and Fusion is still another sub group of Music. Is any type of music enjoyed equally by all of us? Probably not. So, let music continue to be what it evolves into and enjoy what you may.

 

Date:	31-May-1998 18:13:04
From:	Ron
	Fusion is Jazz

 

Date:	01-Jun-1998 05:41:57
From:	Peter Kenyon (kenyonp@cbs.curtin.edu.au)
	It is simple! Just Listen to Charlie Hunter's Bing, Bing, Bing or Natty Dreads. Or Try Herbie Hancock as he invents a whole bunch of standards in 'The New Standard.' Or one from my local scene - Australian jazz vocalist Helen Matthews has recently released a new album "Raising the Standard" (Details at Perth in the Jazz Web! New on CD) There are oldies; but also some new stuff which ought become standards because they are just such magnificent swinging compositions. The thing is that the Duke summed it all up "It don't mean a thing..." But if it does swing, then WOW!

 

Date:	09-Jun-1998 10:34:03
From:	Jazz Jacobsen (Norway)
	Pretty little to discuss the issue fusion or standards? Every human being with a couple og ears and the ability to listen could not miss the right choice

 

Date:	22-Jul-1998 11:57:00
From:	David Whiteis (whiteis@ipfw.edu)
	Apples & oranges are both fruit. They may seem different --in terms of texture, taste, etc.-- but in their essence they're much more similar than not.

 

Date:	19-Oct-1998 14:42:01
From:	Judson Maynard
	I"m not sure how to explain what I want to say. I think that there are standards that cross musical boundaries and are appreciated by music lovers no matter what style of music they appreciate. There are also musical standards created within each musical category which tend to stay within those categories in which they were created. Such as Miles Davis All Blues which has been performed and interpreted by many jazz musicians but which I have never heard performed in the rock world, or country or classical genres. Who knows maybe I'm all wrong.

 

Date:	11-Nov-1998 21:38:04
From:	Ron Vestuto (soulembrace@hotmail.com)
	What I'd like to know, is who created these "standards"? What the people show they like (buy the CDs, go to the concerts) should be considered the standard. Not what some critic says in a column! Chuck Mangione, George Benson, David Sanborn, Sypro Gyra - These are the "standards" for the 80's and 90's. This is what the people like. Not too many releases have sold more than "Breezin" or "Feels So Good"

 

Date:	15-Apr-1999 01:58:11
From:	Patrick Tiglao (bentiglao@prodigy.com)
	Jazz like any other style of music evolves. Therefore,A Jazz Standard should be defined as A song that Jazz fans Enjoy listening to and jazz musicians always play (within the idiom of course). As to wether "fusion" should be classified as jazz standards. Well Yes it should,because if it becomes popular in the jazz circles. well then it's become a Standard for listeners and musicans to follow for years to come

 

Date:	13-May-1999 12:50:41
From:	King Solomon (sol.baker@prudential.com)
	I disagree with Patrick. The difference between Jazz and Fusion is like the difference between night and day. Or to put it even better, "The difference between Jimmy Forrest's playing style and Gerald Albrights' playing is like the difference between apples and oranges". I hope that the young lady that I commute with every morning will eventually understand what I am trying to say. Jazz standards are different from Fusion standards. However, we should be able to appreciate both. There's room for both Grover Washington and Paul Desmond. Take five!

 

Date:	12-Aug-1999 02:22:14
From:	Fusionist (springbrite@fmtc.net)
	ALL JAZZ ENTHUSIASTS READING OR CONTRIBUTING TO THIS DISCUSSION SHOULD IMMEDIATELY BUY HERBIE HANCOCK'S CD "THE NEW STANDARD". ...OLD WITH NEW/NEW WITH OLD AND IT IS A BEAUTIFUL THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Date:	23-Oct-1999 23:12:17
From:	D C DowDell (keyplyr@email.com)
	(excerpts from another thread) "What makes a tune a standard?" Well academically, the term 'standard' is meant to describe a tune that is "standard" to most players repertoire. Now what puts it there is specific to each performer. If enough of us put the tune in our book, for what-ever reason, the tune becomes a standard. If Jazz is the 'genre' and fusion the 'type' then a tune played by most fusion players, would be a Jazz Standard. http://apassion4jazz.cjb.net

 

Date:	24-Oct-1999 09:41:50
From:	Hal
	Fusion:Jazz as Hallmark Cards:Poetry/Literature

 

Date:	20-Dec-1999 13:53:51
From:	Soozie
	Be nice!

 

Date:	10-Jun-2000 11:59:48
From:	Tom Burke
	Hal: Get off of it - Chick Corea, John McLaughlin, Billy Cobham, Wayne Shorter, Zawinul, Jaco, Stanley Clarke, etc. etc. etc. are too good to be dismissed so superficially. Yes, most fusion is bad - most of anything in the Arts is bad, that gets sorted out in time. Put on an early Weather Report or Return to Forever or the Mahavishnu Orchestra and tell me that these still don't hold up?? Let's talk about the best, not about your local bar band fusion clones.

 

Date:	10-Jul-2000 18:12:41
From:	Ron Trevalyn
	Hal: Now, a band with Corea, Wayne Shorter, Stanley Clarke, and Lenny White is less of a band than a lot of famous small group dixieland and swing units?? Clarke & White alone could run circles around the rigid/simple beat of most bands that existed before the sixties - and I'm talking about name bands with famous players. A little reality here would be helpful.

 

Date:	13-Jul-2000 21:31:41
From:	Ed (WaltersE@hotmail.com)
	Hal, where are you stuck? Because you are stuck.

 

Date:	04-Jan-2001 19:43:28
From:	Christopher Gross (christophergross@earthlink.net)
	The question of whether one style or form of music measures up to another in any case is highly subjective! What it requires to move one emotionally cannot be measured, and that is the point of all music! As a jazz fusion guitarist who was also the tenor section leader in a local chamber chorus, played in stage band, a light rock (Eagles type group), a top 40 band, played classical guitar, and now my jazz fusion group, it has become quite obvious to me that different styles of music require different sets of skills which are diverse and all equally challenging & respectable! This is an important point although this is just an answer to what should be a two part question!1. Does Jazz fusion measure up in skill requirement? Answer:Yes 2. Does Jazz fusion measure up in emotional content? Answer: That depends entirely on the listener! Christopher Gross

 

Date:	19-Feb-2001 00:11:37
From:	Phil DiPietro (bassphil@hotmail.com)
	The following comment is not mine. It is from my bassplaying, insightful friend Chico Huff, who has gigged and recorded with artists as diverse as James Taylor, Scott McGill, Vic Stevens, Solas, Jeff Golub, John Blake, Jef Lee Johnson and Pat Martino. He pretty much nails the Ken Burns take on fusion in 2 sentences! chico huff Subject: Re: Check out this link Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:38:57 -0500 Phil DiPietro wrote: > I guess we're on the wrong track, eh! http://www.binkie.net/zawinul/Ken_Burns_JAZZ_On_Fusion.html Fascinating stuff! Funny to say fusion is predictable. One could say the same for straight ahead stuff, play the head, solos, trade 4s etc which,as with fusion, is a huge understatement as to what the music really is. Weather Report is one of my all time faves, one of the first groups I ever heard that transported me somewhere else. Pisses me off when all these guys talk about is Birdland and don't mention anything about the amazing music Shorter and Zawinul wrote with that band. Ah well Talk to yah soon,' Chico

 

Date:	20-Feb-2001 12:01:58
From:	William (Vereen)
	Amen.

 

Date:	27-Feb-2001 12:35:41
From:	Darius (dariusagoodwin@hotmail.com)
	there is a new fusion emerging the styles of Latin/jazz/funk, to a new sound of drum and bass/dance music. I believe fusion is a word encompassing a huge range of styles. Music is either good or bad.

 

Date:	08-Aug-2001 10:46:46
From:	mike todd (toddbass86@aol.com)
	we play what we play.........a standard is anything that has been played over and over again by different musicians.......jazz is a broad term.......i consider it to be improvised music with the goal of communication between the players.....others have different opinions......there have been brilliant composers in the last 30 years of jazz ( frisell, pastorius, marsalis) ...we must not overlook them because they don't play ALL THE THINGS YOU ARE at ev