-
... to a level where you can gig with the best in each respective field.
The reasons I'm interested in this subject are :
1/ Like many I've been through the learning curve for both and
2/ Bizarrely, there are posts I come across on this forum where people suggest that being good at plain old rock guitar is almost as difficult as being good at Jazz....
So I'd like to get some thoughts on this from some of you guys, preferably from those of you who have climbed both "mountains".
I'll start off with an analogy that sums up the difference for me-
Getting my shit together to be gig ready in rock guitar (Hendrix, Clapton, Page etc) as a teenager took some work, probably 2 years of 1 to 2 hours a day. I could then play rock solos I heard (after many repeated listens), and then quickly moved on to improvise endlessly against all the usual rock progressions. Lotsa people did this.
Now lets make the analogy for this work to be "washing windows". Learning rock guitar soloing was like having to wash all the windows for the entire ground floor of the old World Trade Centre.
Learning Jazz on the other hand (again, to an "impressive" level), is more like having to wash every window in not just the whole tower, but both of them! Then, when you think you're done, you have to start again, to keep them clean!
If you disagree, you might infer that I must be doing it all wrong (I've heard that one before). Just so I see you coming, let me just say that if you disagree that the difference is that great, I'll say outright, without a shred of doubt, that you must be doing it wrong!
Novices watching this space will no doubt side with the "Nah, Jazz is not that complicated" brigade. I get it, it's what you wanna believe (and we all tend to read and agree with what suits us these days - Idiocracy an' all that...). Cool, come back to this thread in 5 years and let's see how you're travelling, in fact, let's make it 10!
-
02-19-2019 08:30 AM
-
Just don't throw rock and blues into the same category. Learning to play old school blues well isn't as easy as it may seem. It's not only about learning to play pentatonics over a given key and that's it. There's a lot more below it's visible surface...
Jazz on the other hand is an entirely different category for sure...
-
"Rock" can get pretty wide, but generally speaking: Rock/Blues - especially blues - styles are less sophisticated in terms of:
1. Compositional form
2. Style variation, and
3. The three primary elements of western music:
- Harmony
- Melody
- Rhythm
Probably by a factor of 5-10.
-
They don't even come close in terms of being gig or even jam session ready. I'm surprised this is even a question. Shred guitar might come close, but strictly mechanically.
-
This is the kind of talk that'll get one pegged for being a jazz snob, but it's absolutely true...jazz is just plain harder.
It's challenging music. That's why it's not for everybody, and why few really get "good" at it.
-
To gig and to gig with the best are two diferrent things.
To gig at a pro level, jazz is much more difficult. The guys in town that are playing jazz for tiny audiences in restaurants in San Diego are world class, imo.
Those playing classic rock for larger audiences and getting much more work are generally not on the same level.
But to play at a world class level, the best, I think the margin between jazz and rock narrows. Steve Vai, Eric Johnson, Joe Satriani, Jeff Beck, those are some talented individuals... Frank Zappa music, ...
-
To Frank's point, I have really developed an appreciation for people who really specialize and excel at one thing, even if it's not something that's necessarily technically demanding in the least bit.
-
I think equally hard but in different ways. Technically jazz is more sophisticated music. So you will have to spend much more time learning to improvise. You can't be a mediocre soloist and be a successful jazz musician.
Otoh, imo, in blues and rock improvisation is not the main priority. I know many would disagree, but I'd put combination of strong rhythm guitar, songwriting, and stage presentation as the main things. Thousand of YouTube guitar wankers that go nowhere only prove my point. Being able to sing well also helps!
of course, that's my 'from a career point of view' perspective, so you can argue with that.
But another thing, being great at jazz doesn't by default make you great at rocknroll because it's less sophisticated music. At least on guitar, different feels, different goals!
-
I think jazz has a comparatively high bar in terms of what you need to be able to do to play professionally. Having been bitten by the jazz bug relatively early, I have not much experience playing rock, but, to be a successful rock musician, I think you can get away with knowing the band you are playing in's repertoire, and if you sound good on that stuff, you can work from there. Most rock repertoire to my ears is fairly basic harmonically.
Whereas with jazz, as Robert Glasper says, you have to work pretty hard at it to even sound bad at it.
-
One neat example of this can be heard / seen in some movies from the late '50s and early '60s aimed at teenage audiences. Studio pros were playing rock and it didn't...quite...work. Not because the guys couldn't play---they were great players---but they couldn't rock. It was something they didn't really get.
Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
-
Talk about garbage. Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
The rockers would flounder worse in a jazz setting, though. Getting completely obliterated is different than not quite getting it.
-
I agree. They are different things. Some people play classical well but not jazz, and vice versa. Blues especially is rooted in a feeling. Originally Posted by corpse
-
I just don't remember seeing much of this. Originally Posted by princeplanet
-
Hahahaha Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
Yea, ive heard they disliked rock music anyway, just did it for paycheck. Sorry, doesnt work like that!
In this regard, thanks heaven for the jazz guys who came later, like Sco or Bill Frisell- you knew right away they dig rocknroll with their hearts and souls.
-
Can I? Yes. I think Jazz is harder, and Jeff said he thinks so, and neither of us are novices. Originally Posted by djg
-
If you're saying that is a sub-genre of rock, I'd have to check it out. Most things that are considered jazz, yes. Originally Posted by djg
I'm not interested in testing where lines are thin or blurred; that's another conversation.
-
A great rock player has command of his idiom and can do it on stage at a high volume. None of that is easy.
It's hard to get a good feel for a style, it's hard to sound good when playing loud. There's more time to relax in a jazz performance. Rock has to be burning all the time.
So, all of that is challenging in rock.
Of course, jazz isn't so easy either.
As far as which is easier? Anything that a lot of people devote a lot of time and passion to, eventually breeds an elite level of skill that most people can't achieve. That's true in painting, dance, fly fishing, computer programming and probably everything else.
-
What is harder, Stella By Starlight or blues/rock shuffle in E? My answer would be neither is harder or simpler. And mastering one does not garauntee you good at the other. Each one has its own set of challenges.
Whats your answer?
-
I do have a bit of a pet peeve on this topic: most non-jazz musicians, when they find out I play jazz, immediately start talking about all the theory you have to know to play jazz. I usually politely respond with "I've found that it's mostly a game of the ear", but, it bothers me that jazz has this mathematical reputation that requires a bunch of knowledge of esoteric scales and whatnot.
It bothers me because I started out learning jazz by learning chord scales from jamey aebersolds, and practicing lining up notes perfectly and nailing changes. Of course, I sounded terrible, because I wasn't swinging and was over-focused on the harmonic concerns of playing "correctly". Once I got a teacher that got me singing solos, I started to sound a lot better, and I've found the more I focus on just playing by ear, and working on my ears, the better I sound.
These days, I think it's mostly a disservice to think of jazz as a music where you have to know a lot of theory; many of the very greatest jazz musicians barely knew any theory at all.
-
Yes I never understand why people learn rock by copying solos off records, then think that for jazz you must spend years on scales/theory etc. before you even learn a tune.
In my ignorance, when I got into jazz I just carried on the same way as I did when learning rock, i.e. copy solos off records and learn tunes. Of course later on I did do some scales/theory along the way as needed.
I just saw it as another genre of music so why approach it any differently.
-
Yes, yes, of course jazz is harder, you must have a better technical command of your instrument to "hang with the best".
Remember, music is not a contest. If our playing can help us to attain joy or bring it to others, we've done a lot, regardless of genre or degree of difficulty.
-
My all time favorite jazz guitarist, Jim Hall, was not a guy known for massive chops.
I heard Tom Morello with Bruce Springsteen and was boggled by his technique and melodic gifts for that style.
Playing at that level, in either style, seems pretty hard to me.
I think it's worth remembering that there are great jazz players who know no theory whatsover. Andres Varady is one.
The old way, learning from records and on the bandstand still works.
And, lest I be misunderstood, there are great players who use and value theory.
-
Originally Posted by grahambop
That's interesting as I was the the opposite. I never lifted rock solos, I flew by the seat of my pants (I sounded bad). When I transitioned to upbeat music (jazz as opposed to downbeat music) I never lifted solos. Subsequently I never sounded good in this genre either. I'm happy to say that I no longer torment innocent instruments with my senseless flailing.
-
Far from the best, but I've gigged professionally both in jazz and rock idioms. A lot of it comes from the musical background one may have. When kids start trying to play rock music they often know the repertoire inside out, have heard lots of music and bands, etc. Then they approach jazz from the theory perspective (I sure did
), and that's the long way around.
For jazz, you have to really dive and learn the music or it won't work. And you have to be the type of player who will work on scales, arpeggios, chords, etc. But when talking about high level playing, I think all styles are equally difficult. The level is set by people who devote their whole lives to it, so it's always high. It may be harmonic complexity, the right groove, the right sound,musical nuisances, each style has things you need to master.
-
I perform all three, and to me, how I think of it is that the biggest distinction is the object of authenticity of each style... from the audience perspective...
Rock songs are typically historically popular tunes from bands that listeners know well, so the authenticity of performing a rock tune is pretty much gauged by the fundamental mechanics - adherence to the form, playing the right chords and riffs (the way they were voiced and phrased in the original), the same tone and feel, etc. Even the guitar solo, if not reproduced precisely, needs to capture the important and dramatic parts with fidelity to the original solo, and the rest needs to be well within the "sound and feel" of the original. Basically the listener enjoys the authenticity of "hearing the original band's sound again".
Blues tunes, unlike most rock tunes, tend to get covered by multiple artists, so there is less focus on reproducing the original version and more freedom to "play it your way" while remaining true to the general types of blues styles. This usually means at minimum staying within a "style" throughout a whole song; the "Blues Police" get kind of upset if you mix things up and play the start of the song sounding like T-Bone Walker and the ending sounding like B. B. King... The authenticity in blues shifts from some band's mechanics to an artist's style that has made the tune popular, so the enjoyment of the listener is the authenticity of "hearing a particular artist's style again".
Jazz authenticity is with respect to the song itself. Jazz tunes tend to have been recorded by and performed by pretty much everyone in the jazz world with little regard to sounding like who first did it or how others took their take on it. The "books" even allow for playing these songs without ever having heard anyone's version of them. There is a wide freedom combined with a respect for the song and the general "sound of jazz". The enjoyment of the listener is the authenticity of "hearing, even if in a new way, that jazz song again".
Reply With Quote
Samick Jz4 update/upgrade
Yesterday, 03:41 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos