Modern Jazz Standards for Guitar any good?

[ReubenO]

Hey!

This is my first post on the forum. Great to find some other curious guitar players from around the globe!

I am interested in possibly buying a copy of Modern Jazz Standards for Guitar from Fundamental Changes, but cannot find a list of the standards/compositions included; only the names of some of the composers.
Has anyone bought this and would be willing to share thoughts? Or possibly an index of the standards included?

Any thoughts would be appreciated!

[Gearhead]

hey,

on amazon you can look inside the book and find all the titles and composers. I have the book and I think it is pretty nice with lots of playable songs. To me it is more interesting to see how modern jazz guitarists compose and how the use triads for example.

Hope that helps.

Here is a link to the German amazon site:
Amazon.de

[grahambop]

Here are the details from amazon for anyone who’s interested.

[ragman1]

These are 'standards'? Am I missing something?

[David B]

These are 'standards'? Am I missing something?

Joel Harrison's foreword:

[Christian Miller]

Great resource, thanks for flagging it up! I’ll be checking this out.

EDIT: urgh, tab. I know they have to do it but I was hoping for notation only.

[ragman1]

Joel Harrison's foreword:

Oh, I thought he (and you) were going to explain why he calls these tunes 'standards'. But he doesn't, he simply repeats himself:

"the result is the book in your hands: a collection of modern standards that give..."

I'm not knocking the veracity of this book as a showcase of modern day jazz compositions, quite the contrary, but I find the use of the word standards is a little vainglorious.

To quote Wiki:

'Jazz standards are musical compositions that are an important part of the musical repertoire of jazz musicians, in that they are widely known, performed, and recorded by jazz musicians, and widely known by listeners.'

"...insight into the melodic and harmonic thought of some of the greatest players on the planet...It's wonderful to see the variety, overwhelming even..."

All of which is:

"a hallmark of the Alternative Guitar Summit" ... an event which he just happens to run himself. Well, I never.

[Jimmy blue note]

I have this and it's an answer to certain guitarists of a more progressive mindset and the ongoing question "What pieces can I introduce into my repertoire so I can become fluent with the language and sound of modern players?". This is a collection of players and composers who have been acknowledged to have a progressive and innovative take on the tools and sounds modern players consider important.
Joel Harrison, the editor of these pieces, has devoted much of his life to this cause and he offers a means by which students can immerse themselves in the music of contemporary players, ask questions and 'alternatively' learn about this subset of jazz first hand, in some ways, more broadly and more specifically than going to music school (the annual weeklong camp he offers). This book provides the handiwork of many people he has included into this movement/experience/family.
All of the contributors have some things in common. They have had a rigourous training in the forms and intricacies of the 'standard' Real Book Standards. They are performers who have honed their facility on standard harmonic language. They have played an important part in the ongoing evolution of musical forms that mark a more modern sound younger players are incorporating into the next generation. In this way, these compositions give great vehicles which a progressive player can reference, study and perform exactly the way past generations have used Real Book standards for their improvisational forms.
Improvisational language and compositions are the way that the jazz language provides facility and innovation for the player. His, and the Sher modern Real Books are what I consider the seminal new standards for the progressive and advancing guitarist. Something contemporary to the modern player from the modern player.
Nothing more, nothing less.

[Jimmy blue note]

These are 'standards'? Am I missing something?

These are performance and reference pieces by which contemporary players can acquire the sounds and harmonies that have progressed since Tin Pan alley. They are tunes that can be used in the way generations have used '40's show tunes to gain proficiency in creative soloing (improvisation). In this way, they are very much new standards by which contemporary soloing can be learned and performed.
In their evolution as acknowledged compositions, some have been around a while but never been available in easily accessible form (as tunes were before someone collected them into a standardized real book, and some of them are insightful guides into approaches that students have found fascinating, appealing but elusive.
These are not the same Standards that people carry into a typical jam, but they are new standards by which musicians of a certain propensity can find the answers and new questions of players on the forefront of contemporary jazz.
Before the term Standards were even considered a thing, no less an exclusionary term, they were the tunes of the day. Going back to the roots of the jazz tradition's use of contemporary songform to create the body of the genre, these are tunes that fit that concept of the Standard, true to the music and aesthetics of the day.

[Laurence Finston]

Oh, I thought he (and you) were going to explain why he calls these tunes 'standards'. But he doesn't, he simply repeats himself:

"the result is the book in your hands: a collection of modern standards that give..."

I'm not knocking the veracity of this book as a showcase of modern day jazz compositions, quite the contrary, but I find the use of the word standards is a little vainglorious.

I agree with you. I would even say it borders on false advertising or bait-and-switch, except that "standard" isn't a protected term. I could make up a melody, post it on YouTube and call it a "standard". I wonder how many times any of these compositions have been recorded or performed and by whom. At any rate, they have nothing to do with what most people would understand under the term "jazz standard". And when people talk about "modern jazz", they usually mean jazz from approx. the 1940s on.

[Jimmy blue note]

I would even say it borders on false advertising or bait-and-switch, except that "standard" isn't a protected term. .

"Standard" has come to mean several things.
To the traditionalists, it's a term that seems fixed and a concept designed to protect a certain static mindset as far as what "jazz" even means.
For a contemporary player who, almost as a requirement of basic knowledge, has a thorough command of 40's show tunes and historical perspective, I think there's an idea that Standards are a fluid body of knowledge perpetuated by contemporary players who collective redefine the harmonic language.

I know many communities of players who consider Horace Silver's Peace, or The Love theme for Sparticus, or Chick Corea's Bud Powell, or Goodbye Pork Pie Hat to be Must Know's; standards of knowledge for fluent players, all based, not on show tunes, but interpretations of tunes by players that through recordings or appeal, have entered the standard repertoire. Certainly Impressions was far from a "Standard" when it first appeared. It would have been laughable to even call it a standard at the time given the eternal status of a Cole Porter tune, but it came from its function in the evolution of the jazz genre and it was eventually seen as a lesson book for a way of playing and thus became standardized on some level.

A tune doesn't necessarily disqualify itself from achieving a status as Standard of performance and study, just because Joe Pass didn't record it on his Virtuoso album... wait, he recorded a contemporary tune If, on Virtuoso 2, and for a while, it gained a lot of popularity in jazz circles, then faded from the canon. Did that become a standard, and then become an un-standard? Where is the list of "REAL Standards"?
When tunes serve the function of being contemporary vehicles of performance, how are they different from the tunes that players said "Hey have you heard Cherokee?" to?
Alan Dawson told me that each generation has its own Standards, for him, he set his standards to KoKo, Coltrane brought Giant Steps, Alan played with Sonny Stitt who raised the bar and he played with Mike Stern who brought tunes that AD said "The kids are gonna have to learn this". Standards for each generation.
The jazz scene has gone in many directions in the present scene. Each has tunes that embody the worthy standard of keystone compositions.

Jazz history is fluid. Standards change.

[grahambop]

There’s also this one:

New Standards - Berklee Press

[Joel Harrison]

To those complaining about the use of the word "standards" in the book whose thread is here. Well, I kind of agree. Perhaps the useage of the word is wrong. I'm not even sure that was my title, I think the publisher chose it. Technically, none of these are standards yet. We'd need to play them 1000's of times for that to be so. However, we are indeed trying to establish some new standards, and only you, and all your contemporaries, can decide what those may be. I submit these, and you must also submit your own down the line. Mainly I hope the book inspires and delights, and I don't feel the title should prevent that from happening. Let's not get caught up in language. I am pretty sure no tune here will last as long as Body and Soul but who knows! It's for those who may be a bit tired of playing the same (classic and great) tunes, and care about modern music. For those who want to stretch.

By the way, tab is not my favorite. But the publishers hope to speak to the greatest number of players possible. Please indulge. Thank you for checking this out and best wishes to all players!

[Laurence Finston]

Where is the list of "REAL Standards"?

There is none. Anyone can call anything one likes a standard. However, I don't believe that this book contains songs that most people would consider to be jazz standards. If I bought a book with the title "Modern Jazz Standards" I would expect to find, just as examples off the top of my head, "Ornithology", "Body and Soul", "Blue Bossa", "Manteca", "Good-Bye, Pork Pie Hat", "Green Dolphin Street", "Giant Steps", "My Favorite Things", "'Round Midnight". Maybe songs by Bill Evans, Lennie Tristano, Dave Brubeck, Charles Mingus, John Lewis, Lee Konitz, etc. Certainly other songs by Monk. Other people would probably have a different list. If the title was "Contemporary Jazz Standards", then I would have to pass, because I can't think of any and it's not my metier. I stand by my opinion that the title of this collection is deceptive and I would not be happy if I'd bought it on the basis of the title.

I think a song is a standard if it's performed and recorded frequently and many people know it, so they can play together without too much discussion being necessary. I would say "Summertime" is a standard because it's been recorded countless times. Many years ago, "Tiger Rag" or "Happy Days are Here Again" were standards. Somehow, I don't think they are anymore. "Body and Soul" is certainly a standard as is "Night and Day" or "I Can't Get Started". At a certain point, however, it's hard to say whether a song is a standard or not, and like I said, it's subjective anyway.

One of my songbooks is "The Library of Jazz Standards". It contains several songs which I would say are jazz standards, like "Satin Doll" and "Here's That Rainy Day", but some of them are very questionable. Would you call "The Night We Called it a Day" or "My Sugar is So Refined" a standard?

[Christian Miller]

Well I suppose you could argue there are a large number of GASB type tunes that are rarely played these days but nonetheless qualify as jazz standards. Are you in a scene where a tune like ‘Prisoner of Love’ gets regularly called? Not me mate. (Great tune tho)

But; hmmm. There’s a difference between a song taken from popular music (usually early to mid C20 but not always) and repurposed for jazz, and specific jazz compositions (which btw actually predate standards in the jazz repertoire; jazz standards per se didn’t get going until mid to late 20s.)

I think if it’s ok to call New Orleans Bump, Carolina Shout, Crepsecule with Nellie, Littlw Willie Leaps, Airegin, isotope or Ana Maria jazz standards why is there a problem with Zhivago or something?

depends who you play with as with all things..

I would also count some post GASB popular songs like Wichita Lineman and Isn’t she Lovely as jazz standards because that have been recorded loads by jazz musicians.

[grahambop]

Since the consensus on ‘what are the new standards’ is so vague, surely no-one is likely to purchase a book called ‘modern jazz standards’ without finding out what is in it first (hence this thread).

[Christian Miller]

There is none. Anyone can call anything one likes a standard. However, I don't believe that this book contains songs that most people would consider to be jazz standards. If I bought a book with the title "Modern Jazz Standards" I would expect to find, just as examples off the top of my head, "Ornithology", "Body and Soul", "Blue Bossa", "Manteca", "Good-Bye, Pork Pie Hat", "Green Dolphin Street", "Giant Steps", "My Favorite Things", "'Round Midnight". Maybe songs by Bill Evans, Lennie Tristano, Dave Brubeck, Charles Mingus, John Lewis, Lee Konitz, etc. Certainly other songs by Monk. Other people would probably have a different list. If the title was "Contemporary Jazz Standards", then I would have to pass, because I can't think of any and it's not my metier. I stand by my opinion that the title of this collection is deceptive and I would not be happy if I'd bought it on the basis of the title.

oh I think you are looking for reasons to find fault. Modern is entirely relative. To some anything after Bird is modern, to others that’s ancient history. Contemporary might be clearer but I think the guy is clear about what he’s going in the preface.

I think a song is a standard if it's performed and recorded frequently and many people know it, so they can play together without too much discussion being necessary. I would say "Summertime" is a standard because it's been recorded countless times. Many years ago, "Tiger Rag" or "Happy Days are Here Again" were standards. Somehow, I don't think they are anymore. "Body and Soul" is certainly a standard as is "Night and Day" or "I Can't Get Started". At a certain point, however, it's hard to say whether a song is a standard or not, and like I said, it's subjective anyway.

One of my songbooks is "The Library of Jazz Standards". It contains several songs which I would say are jazz standards, like "Satin Doll" and "Here's That Rainy Day", but some of them are very questionable. Would you call "The Night We Called it a Day" or "My Sugar is So Refined" a standard?

yes. It really depends who you play with. I haven’t played Cantaloupe island for about 15 years, but is it a standard? Of course!

’This time the dreams on me’ is a popular tune in NYC apparently. It’s been recorded A LOT but no one in London plays it, so…

Singers will often call tunes that are less well known to instrumentalists. Also top straightahead players like Peter Bernstein no a frightening number of tunes, and call them on gigs

OTOH hang out with early jazz players and swing musicians as I have and you will need to learn another repertoire. So I would certainly include tiger rag as a standard because I’ve played it on dozens of gigs; it’s very popular with the jazz Manouche guys. and on that scene I’m expected to know it and play it off chart after a count off.

(I did a proper old school swing gig on acoustic archtop last night for the first time in a while and was struggling to remember the middle 8s of things like Rosetta and My Blue Heaven… been a while haha.)

it’s not just a list of the hundred or so tunes people call at intermediate level modern jazz jam sessions, or those rep lists that they hand out at music schools (usually centering heavily on the 50s Miles rep in his keys and his changes.)

one musician in london I play with a lot spent a few years in Israel (East Jerusalem) and knows a whole repertoire of Middle Eastern standards that are often played by Middle Eastern jazz musicians - things like Foq Al-Nachal and Lamma Bada are very well known songs throughout the ME and naturally, jazz players improvise on them. Players like Avishai Cohen and Omer Avital come from the scene…

Now I play them too.

no one knows every tune though. Barry Harris didn’t know ‘China Boy’ a swing era standard I must have played literally a thousand times (and still suck at lol). so I figure it’s all ok. Learn songs you like and play them, hopefully you can find people to play them with.

[Gearhead]

Jeez...

[Laurence Finston]

yes. It really depends who you play with. I haven’t played Cantaloupe island for about 15 years, but is it a standard? Of course!

’This time the dreams on me’ is a popular tune in NYC apparently.

Well, that just goes to show that opinions differ. I don't particularly like Dixieland bands (except for the original recordings) or what they call "trad jazz" in Great Britain and wouldn't necessarily consider songs from that repertoire jazz standards. Of course, then you have to define what jazz is and I've never cared for the "jazz police" and don't want to join their ranks. I do think songs stop being standards when they stop being part of a common store of songs that people know and play together. But that's just my opinion and other people's can be just as valid.

Other than wanting to put in my two cents and say that I think the title of the book in question is deceptive, I don't care that much whether a song is considered a standard or not. In practice, I think "jazz standard" probably means more or less that something is the "Real Book" and so people have a lead sheet for it and/or know the chords and the melody. I've had the Real Book out of the library but I've never bought it and I don't like anything about it. A large part of my repertoire is what people would call jazz standards, but I only care whether I like the song or not, not whether it's considered to be a standard and I think that a lot of other people probably feel the same way.

[Laurence Finston]

I don't think I was looking for reasons to find fault. I'm not entirely sure, but I think in Germany, stores are not required to take books back unless you can show that they were damaged before the purchase or defective in some way. This is to protect them from people copying or scanning books and returning them. So, I don't think it's a bagatelle if people spend their hard-earned money on a book that doesn't contain what they could reasonably expect to find. And I just don't like deception and I think in this case it is. Not the end of the world or an unforgiveable crime, but enough to motivate me to express my opinion.

I think it's pretty well-established what the term "modern jazz" means, but that's also just my opinion.

You must have read my post before I changed "Prisoner of Love" to "Here's That Rainy Day". There aren't actually that many songs in that book that I would consider jazz standards. I play "Prisoner of Love" maybe a few times a year because I like it, but to call it a jazz standard would be pushing it, I admit. However, since I quickly edited it out, I will consider myself off the hook on that one.

[Christian Miller]

Well, that just goes to show that opinions differ. I don't particularly like Dixieland bands (except for the original recordings) or what they call "trad jazz" in Great Britain and wouldn't necessarily consider songs from that repertoire jazz standards.

You don’t like these tunes so therefore they are not jazz standards?

I mean i flipping hate What is this Thing Called love, but it’s definitely a standard.

in any case, I’m fairly sure I’m not a trad jazz musician because whenever I do a gig like it’s only because they can’t find banjo and people look at me funny. Also I can’t remember the changes to Tishimingo blues or any of those convoluted March form things they like to play.

Most of the time I’m hired to play 30s/40s swing into 50s bop. My own stuff is more post bop. The repertoire for that stuff is different. the Benny Goodman/Charlie Christian rep is one corner of this as is the Hot Club stuff of course and the Ellington stuff etc

trad guys are likely to look a bit funny if I call Body and Soul even though it’s a typical pop song of the mid 30s. I’ve never played stuff like Tea for Two or China Boy with tuba guys.

But the bop tunes are often based on what you might call ‘trad’ tunes. Donna Lee on Indiana, Hanid on Dinah, Dig on Sweet Georgia Brown, Hackensack on Lady Be Good, even some more modern stuff Jive coffee by Peter Bernstein is based on Tea for Two. Not to mention those cool recordings of earlier tunes, like Warne and Lee on Tickletoe or Art Pepper on jazz me blues. Or Bud bodying things like Indiana.

Of course, then you have to define what jazz is and I've never cared for the "jazz police" and don't want to join their ranks. I do think songs stop being standards when they stop being part of a common store of songs that people know and play together. But that's just my opinion and other people's can be just as valid.

What people? I play and teach music for a living, I spend a lot of time learning and playing music that people want to play in exchange for money.

Re the practical upshot of this; sometimes you get a list of tunes before the gig, sometimes not. Some people like to call a tune you don’t know at a dance gig don’t check if you know it, count it off and then transpose it to several different keys over the course of the performance. I mean this stuff happens, not all the time, but it happens, you have to get through it. They clearly expect me to know or at least hear the changes! That’s the way people used to learn and I’m grateful I’ve had an opportunity to be roasted that way. It taught me a lot.

My repertoire is as much part of my skill set as my actual playing. It’s one of things I get hired for. In the same way if I show up at a pro level straightahead gig needing the changes for Body and Soul or something it would be seen as a sign of not having the skills for that area of playing, and rightly so, IMO. otoh it’s a bit unreadable to show up to a pro fusion gig not knowing Spain, Nothing Personal and Actual Proof

I don’t like this thing of vibing people about not knowing tunes, but it is an important part of being a player to know at least some, preferably most of the calls on a gig. If not you better be able to read flyshit.

so jazz standards has a very real meaning in that environment; it’s the tunes people expect you to know. But it all depends on who you play with, you can’t make a neat division. There are some tunes everyone knows of course, but there are certainly tunes that are standard for a specific sub-community but not to another. Play with enough and you get a big repertoire.

Other than wanting to put in my two cents and say that I think the title of the book in question is deceptive, I don't care that much whether a song is considered a standard or not. In practice, I think "jazz standard" probably means more or less that something is the "Real Book" and so people have a lead sheet for it and/or know the chords and the melody. I've had the Real Book out of the library but I've never bought it and I don't like anything about it. A large part of my repertoire is what people would call jazz standards, but I only care whether I like the song or not, not whether it's considered to be a standard and I think that a lot of other people probably feel the same way.

I think you think things are a lot more black and white than they are. If I’ve learned one thing from playing it’s never assume anything!

[Jimmy blue note]

Is this blasphemy? Deceptive advertising in the least, I see no resemblance to the King James Bible. Not even the song of Solomon.


(this is a joke, guys)

[Laurence Finston]

You don’t like these tunes so therefore they are not jazz standards?

No, that's not what I meant at all. I don't particularly like them and I don't necessarily consider them jazz standards. Not a cause and effect.

I mean i flipping hate What is this Thing Called love, but it’s definitely a standard.

Sure. I hate "Fever" but maybe it's a jazz standard, too.

But the bop tunes are often based on what you might call ‘trad’ tunes. Donna Lee on Indiana, Hanid on Dinah, Stupendous on ‘Swonderful, Hackensack on Lady Be Good, even some more modern stuff Jive coffee by Peter Bernstein is based on Tea for Two.

I would go further and say that some of them have appropriated the chord changes from popular songs. I won't say "plagiarized" because I don't think chord changes can be copyrighted. One of the well-known ones is based on "Blue Skies", but I've never been able to recognize what tune was being, er, honored in this way.

What people? I play and teach music for a living, I spend a lot of time learning and playing music that people want to play in exchange for money.

Anybody. Anybody can have an opinion. I may think that I'm more qualified to have an opinion than someone else, but I don't get to decide who has an opinion.

My repertoire is as much part of my skill set as my actual playing. It’s one of things I get hired for. In the same way if I show up at a pro level straightahead gig needing the changes for Just Friends or something it would be seen as a sign of not having the skills for that area of playing, and rightly so, IMO. I don’t like this thing of vibing people about not knowing tunes, but it is an important part of being a player to know at least some, preferably most of the calls on a gig. If not you better be able to read flyshit.

I'm sure this is true. It's also a reason why I've never been inclined to play bar piano. I have no desire to play requests for Billy Joel songs or Beatles songs or recent popular songs, which one definitely gets in that line of work. Not that I necessarily dislike them, I just want to play what I want to play.

I have a lot of respect for what it takes to be a professional musician. It's not an easy way to make a living. I'm not a professional musician and never was one. I had a different career. I would not have wanted to be a professional musician. I don't like travelling and I don't like fulfilling other people's criteria. I did plenty of the latter, but at least I didn't have to do it with respect to music.

so jazz standards has a very real meaning in that environment; it’s the tunes people expect you to know. But it all depends on who you play with, you can’t make a neat division. There are some tunes everyone knows of course, but there are certainly tunes that are standard for a specific sub-community but not to another. Play with enough and you get a big repertoire.

I agree with this by and large.

I think you think things are a lot more valve and white than they are. If I’ve learned one thing from playing it’s never assume anything!

I don't think I am seeing things in black and white and I don't know why you think I am, but you're entitled to your opinion about my opinion.

[Litterick]

You have no desire to play Billy Joel songs. That's just the way you are.

[Laurence Finston]

You have no desire to play Billy Joel songs. That's just the way you are.

Very good!