One is considered a good pianist if he can play jazz

[Silencer]

jazz certainly is one of the most profound genres around. its not snobbery or anything, but its one of the only genres that requires a rough mastery of other types of music before you can progress onto it.

Like progressive rock. why is it a higher form than rock? simple, because if u can't play rock, u can't play progressive. progressive is a form of rock that's more technical, harder to pull off and understand (and getting used to at times) Same goes for jazz. U can't start by 'playing jazz'. You start below, perhaps with 4/4 straight songs first, and stuff ilke that.

u can start straight with classical, u can start straight with pop, u can start straight with most things, but u need a some solid foundation before u can start with jazz.

 

[RockPiano]

'the reason why jazz is often viewed as a highest form of music is simply because it's usually accompanied by an emphasis on rhythm. '
-thor 666
hey thor666, i would agree to a very small extent that jazz has an emphasis on rhythm, i feel that rock does too.It's the technique in which you place your emphasis on. For instance, when i play rock music on the piano, i tend to like following the rhythm of the drums, thus the stuff i play on the piano highlights much of the chords-banging of chords which would suit the rhythm of the drums. In this case, rock is definitely accompanied by an emphasis on rhythm, not only jazz.

It would be the same for pop as well. One can choose to place emphasis on rhythm by the heavy chords one plays which falls intune to the beat of the drums as such.

overall, jazz i would say does emphasize alot on rhythm, but so does many other genres....i would say it's the technique of playing the piano in various genres of music would determine whether or not the particular genre of music emphasises alot on rhythm....am i confusing?pardon me if i am....

 

[Silencer]

while rhythm probably is the correct word for this, i prefer to go with feel. as with most forms of music, the feel is very important, but even more so with jazz. the feel is more 'sophisticated', because its something that cannot be easily grasped, but once deciphered, u realize it grabs at you for attention more than most forms of music. you feel 'alive'.

 

[RockPiano]

righ.t...in this aspect i would agree that it would be the feel.till the day i kinda grasp the jazz technique, then i will know what it really 'feels' like i guess.
In the meantime, pretty satisfied with rock progressions especially from LTE and DREAM THEATER.....I like stuff more technical.It's easier to determine the next line of progressions after a while. For jazz, it's very much as what 'silencer' stated the 'feel' of things being played. Especially if one plays jazz in like a band or something, every musician has to learn to listen to one another or their harmonies may just clash, so yeap....i don't know too much about jazz though, just speaking out loud.

 

[iansoh]

looking at the title of this thread in its most plain way, and despite all the brouhaha for the night, i would still consider a jazz pianist a good pianist.

 

[reyrey]

same here

 

[duskalways]

...despite all the brouhaha for the night, i would still consider a jazz pianist a good pianist.

the cows have come home...

 

[_KJ]

having it's roots is African music, the emphasis on rhythm is one of the characteristics of jazz. but it is not to say jazz is music that involves the most complex rhythms. Classical music often has much complex poly-rhythms, e.g works of Chopin, etc

I think jazz is often viewed as having more depth because of it's complexity, whether it's the harmony on rhythm, and even interpretation. The unusual emphasis on the upbeats rather than the down beats, and use of off-beat rhythms in comping certainly does make it difficult to play, but it's more of a stylistic requirement and don't think it means one is a better pianist if he/she could pull off all the complex rhythm stuff.

I have heard of very gd jazz pianists who can't play pop or any other music, cos he/she was too used to the jazz style, e.g accents on the updeat, free syncopated phrasing for melody etc...

Tot it was quite strange, but as I read thru the posts, was very surprised (hope I didn't miss any!) tat most were talkin abt jazz rhythms. Personally, I feel jazz harmony is equally complex and as much a characteristic as the rhythms!

Jazz pianists (or jazz players in general) usually have a very gd grasp of harmony, the different types of chords, extensions n colour tones tat can embellish a given chord, reharmonisation, substitutions etc. Not sure abt u guys, but learning stuff like a simple Dm7-G7-Cmaj7 progression can be embellished to become Ab13-G7b5-C69 was pretty complex for me !

As for the discussion abt superiority of jazz as a genre, I feel that that it's hard to compare! Every form of music has it's own characteristics and often belong to different "categories"

Like u can't compare classical music with jazz, cos the former is more of a interpretative and performance art, where the composers' intentions is always foremost. Jazz however, is more of an improvisitional performance art, which emphasizes personal expression over the composer's intentions.

I guess one could compare jazz to say something like rock, in the sense that both values personal expression, and both has an emphasiss on solos and improvisation. In this case, I still find it hard to justify one form as superior to another. I think wat we can prob say is in terms of personal expression, jazz overs a larger palette (be it rhythms, harmony) than rock.

Having said tat, if a jazz pianist executes his chops in a rock band, he would sound more out of style than "superior". haha.

In terms of technique, I would think tat there's a certain level technical profiency required before someone could play jazz. But from wat I understand, jazz was never about technique. It values honest self-expression over all things.

Jazz history valued players who had personality, an original sound and musical ideas. Some of the greats, like Thelonius Monk played his instrument in a very unusual manner, hardly wat one calls fantastic tecnhnique.

On the other hand, classical pianists are remembered for their touch and technical proficiency, among other things

To sum it up, I believe each genre has it's own beauty (cliche cliche, haha) and is different frm each other, the same way you and I are different.

Each is unique and special in its own way


Regards,
KJ

 

[thor666]

hey thor666, i would agree to a very small extent that jazz has an emphasis on rhythm,.

yep. but you and i also know that rock has evolved into modern rock, and contemporary has evolved into pop. Kinda sucks eh?

i think rock kinda has it's "more commonly used" rhythms, which does limit the range of types of rhythms you can pick up from rock. i don't play jazz, because i can never catch the off-beat rhythms in the jazz solos.

it's a little tricky i guess. as i've said, you definitely don't need to touch jazz at all to be a good pianist. However, jazz is one of the genres with the widest demand for techniques and theory in the field of music. There are rules that jazz music breaks which even rock music won't go to imo. for example, most rock music are fixed in terms of composition, but jazz music may be such that 4 totally unrelated players may improvise on their own just by feel and catching the key at different points of the music alone.

 

[thor666]

while rhythm probably is the correct word for this, i prefer to go with feel. as with most forms of music, the feel is very important, but even more so with jazz. the feel is more 'sophisticated', because its something that cannot be easily grasped, but once deciphered, u realize it grabs at you for attention more than most forms of music. you feel 'alive'.

ah. you got me. feel is definitely a better term to use here.

 

[thor666]

KJ probably has one of the most acute observations in this thread.

to put it like what other fellow forummers do here:

+1 :wink:

 

[rockito]

yeah..jazz guitarist is a good guitarist, classical guitarist is good too..same goes for rock guitarist...WTH
i'll consider jazz pianist is a good jazz player after seeing him play jazz only.
by the way..wat do u guys mean by good?

 

[rockito]

Having said tat, if a jazz pianist executes his chops in a rock band, he would sound more out of style than "superior". haha.

In terms of technique, I would think tat there's a certain level technical profiency required before someone could play jazz. But from wat I understand, jazz was never about technique. It values honest self-expression over all things.

there r bands who uses jazz in rock..they dont sound out of style..they r cool..
even me uses jazz sometimes to spice things up. like somebody said earlier, fuse things together..

and without proper jazz skills/techniques..u cant execute that honest self-expression of jazz..
so i guess its a combination of both

 

[rockito]

check out guitarist Allan Holdsworth (well known for his in-between rock & jazz music)
and check out the chaotic Dillinger Escape Plan (hardcore+jazz)

good nite. god bless.
thank you!!

 

[Cheez]

I'll have to agree with rockito that jazz requires skill and technique as much as classical, albeit different skill sets and techniques. Scales are still very much needed although different scales are used, so finger technique are still important. Even syncopation etc requires technique.

 

[_KJ]

there r bands who uses jazz in rock..they dont sound out of style..they r cool..
even me uses jazz sometimes to spice things up. like somebody said earlier, fuse things together..

wat I meant was for a jazz pianist to do the usual things (he does with a jazz band) in a rock band may not work, and hence may seem out with the rest.

I am not ver ysure wat you mean by using "jazz" in rock (everyone seems to have different interpretation of wat "jazz" is...) ; if it refers to "jazz-like" solo lines/licks, it will work I think!

but if a jazz pianist were to try his usual bag of tricks for harmonies, with substitutions, altered chords and all, I am not so sure.... one thing, some of these devices used require active participation from the bass player to work.

The scenerio came to mind cos of what friend mentioned afer he observed a jazz pianist's participation in a rock band. "He was playing some pretty complex stuff behind the band...... tat will sound cool in jazz, but just somehow made things too complex for rock"

I guess in a way it boils down to whether the player knows how to fit in, with his given knowledge, or whether how much of a purist the listener is

anyway, I agree with Rockito, fusion of styles is definitely cool if one knows how to merge characteristics of the genres elegantly.

I am pretty much into such experimentation myself !

(Thanks for the recommendation, will check it out !)

As for definition of "good", I think it depends on the genre of music; for jazz, I suspect it's the ability to communicate to the listener ur ideas and personality, and also your ability to communicate with the rest of your bandmates.

Scales are important man; the more scales you know, the more room for exploration for improvisation, more "sounds" one can play with. Also offers new ideas for writing melodies I think

Regards,
KJ

 

[_KJ]

and without proper jazz skills/techniques..u cant execute that honest self-expression of jazz..
so i guess its a combination of both

oh, I ddin't mean LITERALLY jazz wasn't about technique. Of course one needs to have a certain level technique to play... I meant the essence of jazz was abt honest self-expression.

Anyway, the quote "jazz isn't about technique" didn't come from me haha. Read it somewhere; think it was from one of the jazz musicians, Branford Marsalis

Regards,
KJ[/quote]

 

[3notesAbar]

How does one mesaure the ability, calibre or even worth of a musician?

Some are darn good solo instrumentalists, but they cannot play properly in a band to save their moms. Some others find their groove easily in funk/R&b, expression in rock/metal/jazz, and there are those who like to improvise freely in jazz. Heard of Freedom Jazz dance?

Instead of comparing musicians in different genres, lets just for the sake of the arguement compare genres of music. From Gregorian to Ragas, Classical to Baroque, blues to Jazz, Rock to fusion, punk to emo and whatever the wonderful world of music has to offer, I'd say its stupid to even begin comparing. On another level, i think its equally ridiculous to compare musicians. Last but not least, it takes years to be able to 'Play the Wrong Notes right' - the jazz way. Takes minutes to learn a 3 chord punk song, but is the person playing it in the original spirit of punk (anarchism, rebellion)?

Music has always evolved for reasons of culture. I'd only go as far as to say, I'd prefer living with the Brits than the americans for example, rather than just state outright that "the Americans are BETTER people".

 

[gordonzz]

i nv read the posts..

but its like saying only guitarist who can play classical is good.











crap. :roll:

 

[Silencer]

aiyah for the sake of argument let's put it this way.

pick up ur instrument now and play some jazz.







i know i can't even begin to fake playing jazz.