MetalTabs.com Forum

MetalTabs.com Forum (http://metaltabs.com/forum/index.php)
-   Music Theory (http://metaltabs.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Jazz... (http://metaltabs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29472)

YJM04 2006-09-04 20:20

Quote:
Originally Posted by sixsicsix
I always though jazz and funk kinda went hand-in-hand

u can tell by the bass. funk bass is usually electric and with the drums(kick). and jazz bass is usually with the hat and a walkin bass line. and most cases is accoustic depending on what sub genre of jazz.

maggot666 2006-09-07 10:59

What do u think of the Beatles!?

JOAMdude 2006-09-07 12:34

wat are u?

johnmansley 2006-09-08 02:31

Get the fuck out of my forum, you Phillipino cunt.

low-tech 2006-09-09 14:55

from my experience slugging it out with jazz drummers, basically thier community balks at anyone referencing their music or attributing what they do to themselves, especially metal bands,fusion drummers,basically everyone outside of the latin crowd. they seriously go ape-shit about this. from a drummers point of view, there is no such thing as a jazzy metal drummer.

metal bands utilizing jazz scales is essentially fusion, not jazz. this was thier biggest point and i tend to agree in the context that most jazz is improvisation based. a metal band utilizes the theory of jazz,the scales and whatnot, but not the practice,rids itself from the context from which the theory is regularly applied.


btw,funk is rock music that swings-ie a triplet feel, its blues based. the two are total different world tho.

Cunty Shunt 2006-09-21 17:44

Quote:
Originally Posted by low-tech
this was thier biggest point and i tend to agree in the context that most jazz is improvisation based.

Hmmm...I think that would then make my band a jazz/grind band. Because we don't write songs when we play live, it's unplanned, always. We just kinda know how to play with each other so we understand what each of us is going to do and when.

problematic 2006-09-22 09:32

Well, I'm having a hard time writing any Jazz whatsoever.

So, ill buy a book.

In the meantime, any tips?

JacksonGuitars07 2006-09-22 19:49

Quote:
Originally Posted by problematic
Well, I'm having a hard time writing any Jazz whatsoever.

So, ill buy a book.

In the meantime, any tips?


Chords Galore helps with learning extended voicings on the guitar and such, its a good start to learning jazz.

problematic 2006-09-23 06:25

Well, I bought two books; "Introducing Jazz for the Rock Guitarist" and "Jazz Guitar supplement".

Should go well.

low-tech 2006-09-23 17:46

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunty Shunt
Hmmm...I think that would then make my band a jazz/grind band. Because we don't write songs when we play live, it's unplanned, always. We just kinda know how to play with each other so we understand what each of us is going to do and when.



as far as im concerned, call it whatever you want. the thing about jazz is the "swing" feel. improvisation can be in any genre, of course

i should probably get the fuck out of the guitar theory threads

JonR 2006-09-25 06:17

Quote:
Originally Posted by problematic
Well, I'm having a hard time writing any Jazz whatsoever.

So, ill buy a book.

In the meantime, any tips?
Yeah, don't buy a book! :)

Jazz knowledge comes from studying the music itself. That means listening to recordings from throughout the history of jazz, and absorbing the stylistic characteristics - the WAY people play, not just what they play.
All great jazz musicians know the history thoroughly - you might be surprised to know how much modern jazz players respect the stars of the distant past. (eg Pat Metheny is a Louis Armstrong fan.)
You should also go to jazz gigs, and study what the musicians do. I don't mean work out what scales they're using - :rolleyes: - I mean look at the way they interact. Listen for ideas that get thrown back and forth around the band, between rhythm section and front line, etc.

Think of "jazz" as a verb, not a noun. It's not a form of music - it's a way of playing music (any music); above all, it's an attitude to music. It treats any piece of music as a piece of raw material: "hmm, what kind of fun can we have with this?"
This attitude does exist in rock music, but it's rare. Most rock musicians like to follow rules - they want to "get things right", play it the same each time, make it perfect. The "jazziest" rock musician I know of was Jimi Hendrix. Bob Dylan (perhaps strangely) is another. These are/were people who regard the performance as the place where real music happens, not the recording. A recording is only one example of how a piece of music might be played. To repeat that version live, note for note, is to miss the whole point. A recording is dead; it's gone. Real music is what happens there in front of you, on a stage.
Jazz is about improvisation and self-expression - but always within a given musical framework. So although they do "make it up as they go along", they know where they are and where they're headed. They are speaking an intelligible language, not babbling.

If you must buy a book (and books ARE useful! I was only kidding) buy a "Real Book" - a collection of transcriptions of performances of jazz standards, with notation and chords. (Yep, sorry, you need to read notation.)
Buy a playalong book/CD, such as the Jamey Aebersold series. (But yep, you still need to read notation.)

If you decide, actually, you don't really like jazz that much - that's fine. Jazz does require the kind of total commitment that few other types of music do. But you can pick up some concepts from it, and apply those to other music (like, uh, metal) - you could get some highly original sounding music from doing this. But a certain amount of intellectual rigour is involved :eek: .
:homer: << not a jazz musician...

problematic 2006-09-25 08:28

Thanks for your great response dude, and I agree with pretty much everything you said.

Well, I bought the two books, and its not as generic as you made it out to be. One has a cd, the other doesn't. So far its just been hardcore theory which I need to catch up on anyway. And they tell you that you have to listen to the music to be able to fully play it properly, which I understand, so they convieniently give me shitloads of 'must have' albums.

I see, the learning curve is fucking steep.

Well, I'm prepared to take it on. The books cover so much material, I dont think i'll finish them in the next two years. Thankfully both books have both notation and tab, even though I can read notation fairly well, I just really can't be fucked.

fucking time to practice scales :rolleyes:

problematic 2006-10-07 10:29

Reviving the thread a tad...

For those of you who play Jazz / a similar musical genre on guitar, do you prefer:

a) picking strings normally?
b) fingerstyle method?
c) hybrid method (thumb pick)?

Or maybe a combination, depends on what?...

Interested to know :)

problematic 2006-10-10 10:17

:( Dammit I need to find a forum for Jazz. Sputnik and this is dead for Jazz :(.

Fuckin reply someone!

davie_gravy 2006-10-10 13:40

I've been trying to verse myself with jazz. I find myself doing alot of hybrid picking and normal picking. I just found out about the ii-V-I jazz progression. I also love the maj7/min7/dom7 chords used in jazz and that progression. Check out wholenote.com for good jazz examples ranging from beginner to expert. I love how jazz progressions and common jazz chords can really transform the 7 modes.

ThornsOfHeaven200 2006-10-10 14:40

Quote:
Originally Posted by davie_gravy
I just found out about the ii-V-I jazz progression.

What does the"ii-V-I" mean? I know very little theory so if this is basic stuff thats why i dont know it.

amerok 2006-10-10 18:14

ii-V-I is a chord progression with the 2nd, 5th, then first chord of whatever key youre in. Because the 2 is lower case its a minor chord. the V is dominant and the I is major. if you were in C major youd play Dm7-G7-Cmaj7

ThornsOfHeaven200 2006-10-11 09:11

Thats still pretty confusing and i dont entirely understand what you are saying due to my lack of music theory knowledge, but thanks for the explanation.

davie_gravy 2006-10-11 09:17

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThornsOfHeaven200
Thats still pretty confusing and i dont entirely understand what you are saying due to my lack of music theory knowledge, but thanks for the explanation.


It's actually quite simple. Simplistically, the roman numerals are just representations for specific chords depending on what key you are in. Just check out the thread on modes, that should help clarify.

JonR 2006-10-13 05:55

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThornsOfHeaven200
Thats still pretty confusing and i dont entirely understand what you are saying due to my lack of music theory knowledge, but thanks for the explanation.

Chords in key of C major:

I = C (Cmaj7)
ii = Dm (Dm7)
iii = Em (Em7)
IV = F (Fmaj7)
V = G (G7)
vi = Am (Am7)
vii = Bdim (Bm7b5)

In key of E, for comparison:

I = E (Emaj7)
ii = F#m (F#m7)
iii = G#m (G#m7)
IV = A (Amaj7)
V = B (B7)
vi = C#m (C#m7)
vii = D#dim (D#m7b5)

The roman numerals are useful for talking about how chords relate to one another in a key, without needing to talk about specific chords (because the relationships are the same in any key).


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:29.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.