The key thing is, one either likes what jazz from the late 40s or so on has to offer, or doesn't. Unless you hear some kind of 1930s/40s revival big band (most of which I'd avoid like the plague, since it's like listening to some weaker facsimile of the real thing, a museum piece), you're still gonna hear a lot of long solos. So I'd have to graciously and respectfully disagree with our Host on that comment. And even those larger ensemble pieces that have more scored sections tend to also have lengthy improvised sections. You could argue that's a good thing, leave 'em wanting more and all that, but to me, I'd rather hear the more rather than be wanting in the case of truly great improvisers like these musicians are.Īlso I have to say that I have listened to a ton of modern big band music, recorded and at many different jazz festivals, and I would observe that big band arrangements for a long time have had the same kinds of long strings of lengthy solos that small group modern jazz does, often with brief heads or melody statements to launch the soloists. They are btw wonderful for what they are, and it is so admirable at how many great ideas those soloists were able to pack into such short statements - incredible intelligence and discipline required to do that - but at the end of the day most folks who enjoy jazz find those kinds of short spots a bit frustrating and constraining, they're often seemingly just getting started when the solo ends. That era is long gone and you simply aren't going to hear those kinds of almost haiku-like solos anymore. As a result, solos were very brief, concise. But the key difference was the balance - partly due to tastes of the time, partly due to absolute physical limitations in recording media, and partly because jazz was actually popular music at the time and therefore pitched at selling records and bringing large numbers of people to live shows, recordings were very short and there just wasn't a lot of room for long solos. I say this because even "big band era" jazz included improvisation (solos) as a fundamental element. But, I'm guessing that perhaps part of the problem is simply that you don't like the length of many post-swing era jazz recordings, which left more room for stretching out during solos. the main difference is that it left the slower restrained, and classical feel of cool jazz along with classical aspects that are seen in third stream, behind and brought fire back into jazz with its bebop like style with more melodic ideas and bringing back the emotional connection that was absent in cool jazz.Click to expand.It's hard to unpack all this. so hard bop player brought the fire back into jazz, by bringing it back to a bebop like style, but making it more melodic, and having slight more regular phrasing In conclusion the music of hard bop player differed from cool jazz and third stream music in many ways. going off that cool jazz was said to lack fire and passion that previous styles had. so hard bop returned jazz back to a more blues based music. some were seeing cool jazz become to classical (related to third stream) they felt it was getting to far away from its roots. hard bop can be seen as responce to cool jazz. this is just a term coined for jazz that has classical astetics present in the music. third stream is the mix of jazz and classical music, but its rather a trend than a style, jelly roll Morton is considered a third stream musician along with george gershwin and miles davis. Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers, Horace Silver, Charles Mingus, the Clifford Brown-Max Roach Quintet, and Miles Davis were representative of the driving hard bop bands.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |