Page 1 of 2
#1
Hey, I started to listen to jazz and I really like it. I like some John Coltrane song and Take Five by Dave Brubeck is soo cool. What should i look listen to, your suggestions. I need more

Thanks
My Gear:
Fender Stratocaster MIM Sunburst
Epiphone LP Studio
2X Roland Cube 30X
Little Big Muff
Dunlop Crybaby Classic
Squier Precision Bass
#4
I know these guys already, what I had in mind was something instrumental, with saxophone, bass, piano and drums.
My Gear:
Fender Stratocaster MIM Sunburst
Epiphone LP Studio
2X Roland Cube 30X
Little Big Muff
Dunlop Crybaby Classic
Squier Precision Bass
#5
try miles davis...his career spans from bop to fusion...and his groups have all the best players in jazz and most have their own groups..so you can explore their projects as well..

play well

wolf
#6
charles mingus
wayne shorter
hank mobley
herbie hancock
oliver nelson
cannonball adderley
lee morgan
eric dolphy
thelonious monk

if you want specific albums just let me know, that should keep you busy for a while
#8
Thanks a lot.
My Gear:
Fender Stratocaster MIM Sunburst
Epiphone LP Studio
2X Roland Cube 30X
Little Big Muff
Dunlop Crybaby Classic
Squier Precision Bass
#9
bright size life - pat metheny

album changed my life. although that's really mainly if you're looking for some cool guitar jazz.
#10
Guitarists: Pat Metheny, Joe Pass, Richard Smith, Wes Montgomery, Django Reinhart, Jim Hall, Lee Ritneour

Other players: Herbie Hancock, Miles Davis, Dizzy Gillespie, John Coltrane, Thelonious Monk, Bill Evans, Charlie Parker, Charles Mingus, Bud Powell, Chick Corea, Eric Dolphy, Oscar Peterson, Paul Desmond
#11
Great list.


but Loius Armstrong isn't bad either..... for a trumpet player.
#12
Quote by Jman09
Al di meola, john mclaughlin great jazz players.


no they arent
#13
django reinhart got me into jazz, go learn some of his tunes if you want to find interesting yet digestable ways to start playing jazz.

oh and motoko yes they are, maybe you could call them fusion players but thats just splitting hairs.
#14
john mclaughlin is a terrible improviser, maybe he is 'jazz' but he certainly isn't great. he was definitely more of a rock player anyway.

have you heard his mahavishnu stuff? when it came his turn to blow, he would always do some lame ass pentatonic lick and then get really confused, and follow it with tasteless shredding.

and then of course you get random rock/metal people saying OH SHIT JOHN MCLAUGHLIN IS ****ING AWESOME JAZZER when in reality its a mortal sin to mention him in the same thread as people like joe pass and jim hall
#15
Dizzy gilespie. Monk, mingus, coltrane are all good. Miles davis is one of my favorite horn players.
I am the only sane person on the planet. Does that make me crazy?

Crank the Mids
#16
im not particularly famialiar with the mahavishnu orchestra or rock metal guys saying hes a great jazzer, but im straight up sure hes sold a fxck load more records then you have motoko.
#17
Quote by yourmatejosh
im not particularly famialiar with the mahavishnu orchestra or rock metal guys saying hes a great jazzer, but im straight up sure hes sold a fxck load more records then you have motoko.


you shitbag, how does this justify him being a good guitarist? because he's sold more records than a guy that doesnt even record? nice deduction there sherlock, now im definitely sure he is a good player! going from this logic, kanye west is an even better musician. nice going, dunce.

not that this needs any further development, but selling records does not = being a good jazz guitarist lmao. charlie christian hardly even recorded any albums, are you going to tell me he sucks because of that? dumbass

how can you not be particularly familiar with mahavishnu orchestra? it was one of his major acts. you are obviously not very familiar with him at all then

dont confuse poser jazzers like john and al with real jazz players.
#18
miles davis saw something in john mclaughlin, but he was probably wrong, huh motoko? I wouldn't want to hear in a silent way without him.
#19
Quote by vaaan
I know these guys already, what I had in mind was something instrumental, with saxophone, bass, piano and drums.

The GOLD SPARKLE BAND is a really tight group if your looking for wild instrumental jazz. They consist of a drummer, bassist and two saxophonists and a trumpet player.

Give their records "Earthmover" or "Nu Soul Zodiac" a spin and see what you think.



If you're looking for some really avant-garde jazz you might want to look into SUN RA.
#20
Quote by Jimmy94
miles davis saw something in john mclaughlin, but he was probably wrong, huh motoko? I wouldn't want to hear in a silent way without him.


miles davis was also a heroin addict
#21
what difference does that make? miles davis was first discovered by charlie parker, a smack addict. So does that mean miles had no talent?
#22
I don't see how you can just disqualify all of john's talent as a player and reduce his solos to tastless shredding and pentatonic licks. John did alot for Fusion and explored many different types of complex music and crazy theory i have yet to grasp. In fact basically all Jazz musicians have delved into different musical territory. But it seems your really hung up on what YOUR version of REAL jazz is but Pass and Hall, who im a big fan of, aren't the end all be all of Jazz guitarists.
"See the Glory Of the Royal Scam"
#23
John McLaughlin is an amazing guitar player and musician! He is not "straight ahead" jazz, but I love what he does. If you've never heard any of the stuff he's done with Shakti is amazing. In my opinion there's far to much pretention about what makes jazz "true" or "pure" its the thing in metal when people won't listen to a band cause they aren't "brutal" or "kvlt" enough
#24
Quote by Jimmy94
what difference does that make? miles davis was first discovered by charlie parker, a smack addict. So does that mean miles had no talent?


more to the point, john played on a fusion album more or less. not a jazz album. fusion is different, its a lamer version of regular jazz. hell, i'd even rather listen to metheny's smooth jazz stuff before i listen to 'jazz-rock'

what im telling you jimmy is not to take a decision made by a good musician as fantastic based on their reputation alone. saying, 'oh miles saw something in him, he must be good!' is a really ignorant statement. so what if he did? there's every chance he was wrong, and he was, looking back at all the crap mahavishnu orchestra dished out.

in essence, don't be blinded by reputation. look at the facts.

john mclaughlin didn't advance jazz. he diminished it, by adding in all the lame shit that rock does and taking out all the stuff that made jazz great. he hardly ever swung, what kind of jazz player doesnt do something fundamental like swing? he does gayass power chord shit and shredding.

what's so bad about elitism for jazz? for metal maybe its a bad thing coz pretty much all metal is dud anyway. but when you add in other genres that are inferior to jazz, it diminishes the music. in the same way, if a rock band starts to adopt jazz things and does them well, its increased their musicianship.

ill add more to this later, got go out

remember kids, dont do fusion
#25
Goodness!!! Im not too sure what to think of your little (or rather big) rant.

Let's just take a wiki look at John McLaughlin shall we?

He played with Miles Davis on Bitches Brew, and In A Silent Way

From the wiki: "His guitar playing includes a range of styles and genres, including jazz, Indian classical music, fusion, and Western Classical music, and has influenced many other guitarists."

"McLaughlin studied violin and piano as a child, but took up the guitar at the age of 11, exploring styles from flamenco to the jazz of Stephane Grappelli."

recordings as a sideman with Miroslav Vitous, Larry Coryell, Joe Farrell, Wayne Shorter, Carla Bley, The Rolling Stones, and others.

Wayne Shorter, and Larry Coryell are pretty big jazz names

So, if John played with Miles does that make miles "impure"?

If that makes miles "impure" miles played with John Coltrane, Herbie Hancock, Bill Evans, Wayne Shorter and Chick Corea

If that makes Bill Evans and John Coltrane "impure" etc. etc.

You're not getting anywhere like that boxing your music in, and cancelling some out.
#26
you're not getting anywhere using this 'impure' strawman

also need i point out the futility of using wikipedia?

john mclaughlin doesnt make any jazz, he made fusion a while ago, now hes into this indian crap. miles davis hired him for a fusion album. you didn't hear him on birth of the cool did you?

jazz-funk is okay. herbie, chick and wayne have good rhythm, and funk and jazz are natural partners. if this is jazz fusion, then jazz fusion is good. but jazz-rock is shitty.

'recordings as a sideman' - where does he lead his own jazz?
#27
What makes jazz fusion shitty? Im a big fan of acts like Return To Forever. In your oppinion jazz and funk blend well together. What about jazz and latin or bossa nova or is that just "shitty"

What makes indian crap? Its all oppinions

Bitches Brew is one of my favorite albums, to get into free jazz.

The whole weakness of your argument is that your dealing with oppinions of others and yourself.

You talk about metheny like he's something you'd listen to only as a last resort, if you don't like it, say that. Don't put a blanket over smooth jazz (or whatever the heck you want to cal it)

With your vein of thinking, a guitarist who is into rock and thats the main stuff that they play, although they may have great chops, know and apply a lot of theory to their playing, is according to yourself a lot "worse" because they play rock, than a true "jazz" guiarst who may have a less developed practical side, and less knowledge of theory.

Your starting to make classification and grouping the most important things in music, and this is wrong. Classification and labels if anything limit creativity, not enhance it.
If you consider yourself a "true jazz guitarist who is so so so hight above all that indian and rock shit" you'll want to make sure that your playing jazz (none of this others shit) This is incredibly stifling towards emotional expression (which is what music is all about, I think mabey you need to be reminded of that fact)

If we go with your view its like another "pop" radiostation. On the "pop" radiostations you don't hear jazz or classical much, cause according to the guys running the radiostation its "shitty" so they only want to play the pop stuff, which is why a lot of that music sounds very same.

If your going to lay down the law and say, "well if its not straight ahead jazz its shit, I don't want any of this shitty idian music"

Duke Ellington's Rhapsody in Blue. What do you make of that, combining classical and jazz, or Dave Grusin and Lee Ritenour's Two Worlds album?

Some people argue that Ellington's music isn't jazz, because it was orchestrated.
If you consider yourself a "true" jazz guitarist, there is no need to learn orchestration because if you did, and if you used it you would't be a "true" jazz guitarist anymore, ergo your limiting your musicianship.

Its the same thing in rock music, you dont need to kow about tri-tone subs in rock music, so why bother learning them if you want to be a "true" rock guitarist?
Last edited by jesse music at Dec 2, 2009,
#28
Quote by jesse music
What makes jazz fusion shitty? Im a big fan of acts like Return To Forever. In your oppinion jazz and funk blend well together. What about jazz and latin or bossa nova or is that just "shitty"

What makes indian crap? Its all oppinions

Bitches Brew is one of my favorite albums, to get into free jazz.

The whole weakness of your argument is that your dealing with oppinions of others and yourself.

You talk about metheny like he's something you'd listen to only as a last resort, if you don't like it, say that. Don't put a blanket over smooth jazz (or whatever the heck you want to cal it)

With your vein of thinking, a guitarist who is into rock and thats the main stuff that they play, although they may have great chops, know and apply a lot of theory to their playing, is according to yourself a lot "worse" because they play rock, than a true "jazz" guiarst who may have a less developed practical side, and less knowledge of theory.

Your starting to make classification and grouping the most important things in music, and this is wrong. Classification and labels if anything limit creativity, not enhance it.

If we go with your view its like another "pop" radiostation. On the "pop" radiostations you don't hear jazz or classical much, cause according to the guys running the radiostation its "shitty" so they only want to play the pop stuff, which is why a lot of that music sounds very same.

If your going to lay down the law and say, "well if its not straight ahead jazz its shit, I don't want any of this shitty idian music"

Duke Ellington's Rhapsody in Blue. What do you make of that, combining classical and jazz, or Dave Grusin and Lee Ritenour's Two Worlds album?

Some people argue that Ellington's music isn't jazz, because it was orchestrated.
If you consider yourself a "true" jazz guitarist, there is no need to learn orchestration because if you did, and if you used it you would't be a "true" jazz guitarist anymore, ergo your limiting your musicianship.

Its the same thing in rock music, you dont need to kow about tri-tone subs in rock music, so why bother learning them if you want to be a "true" rock guitarist?


and the weakness of your argument is the same because you are dealing with opinions. dont pull that shit here

i like pat metheny, just not so much his smooth jazz stuff. he's still a good fusion player though (one of the only)

i dont like latin, samba, bossa nova or any of that stuff. bossa nova rhythms piss me off and make me want to dance

yes, jazz is a more academic music and forces you to understand alot more about what you are playing than rock. the same with classical, a very good style of music. to be a good jazzer you need good theory and a good ear. to be a good rocker you need to be able to tune your E string down a tone. by adhering to rock musically, you, intentionally or unintentionally, lower the quality of your music. jazz has a much brighter and colourful harmonic sense, a much more intimate knowledge of melody and a great sense of rhythm (which is why it bonds well with funk.) i dont see how you can say songs based around 5ths and a backbeat is so incredibly good to mix with jazz.

If your going to lay down the law and say, "well if its not straight ahead jazz its shit, I don't want any of this shitty idian music" - i dont know what ur saying here, you havent finished your sentence

duke is dope, but grusin sucks balls - he can't swing. anything with duke in it is money. classical is great

Its the same thing in rock music, you dont need to kow about tri-tone subs in rock music, so why bother learning them if you want to be a "true" rock guitarist? - i dont know how this relates to what i was saying but it seems to me you are making out rock players to be ignorant (fair claim.) why would jazz be embellished merging with people that don't know what a tritone sub is or how it works?

all in all that was pretty weak, half the time your rambling didnt address anything i said and john mclaughlin is still a horrible player.
#29
If you want to think that John McLaughlin is a horrible player that is your oppinion, and I respect that (though I don't agree with it)

My main issue was the way that your boxing everything in to catagories. The dividing lines between music are getting thinner and thinner. I think music is a lot more exciting from a exloratory approach rather than a conservatory approach. If your afraid to mix jazz with anything else, in fear of it diminishing the quality of your jazz, than creativity is dead. Mixing different types of music may not always work, but if you are not pre-pared to try, than you are never going to get to hear all of the beautiful musics that could have been.
#30
you can be creative within jazz, or mix it with good styles

but rock is just not a good style, it doesnt have anything to offer jazz. funk, classical, blues etc yeah they are fine...but not rock.

why dont you start by telling me what rock can contribute to jazz?
#31
Well, it can introduce new sounds, I think that answer is plenty.

But, if you want to be detailed, progressive rock and metal are far more advanced in terms of meter. The rock/metal guitarist Ron Jarzombek has come up with a variation of Arnold Schoenberg's 12 tone theory. Some of the rhythmic concepts outlined by steve vai in his "tempo mental" article are very advanced, and interesting. Zappa's music is very complex, as is Dream Theaters. Miles davis talked about trying to emulate Jimi Hendrix's sound on the trumpet, which brought something new and exciting to jazz.
#32
i dont think i want jazz taking any influence from someone as excessive as ron jarzombek.

zappa is pretty cool, i guess some of his stuff wouldnt be too bad. not a fan of dream theatre, not a fan of hendrix.

although prog music is more advanced in metric stuff, it sounds horrible because they can't master it. it's just odd rhythm for the sake of being progressive. using really strange meter really messes with the beat and its hard to get a good groove going. i'd be willing to support your point if those bands started to master it.
#33
I recon DT and Zappa are well of their way to "mastering" odd time signatures.

Ron Jarzombek is an excessive player, but just because he is excessive doensn't mean that you cant take an idea of his and use it in a les excessive way
Last edited by jesse music at Dec 2, 2009,
#34
Motoko, we're not talking about science. We're talking about art.
If someone sees rock good enough to be mixed with jazz, then it's good enough to be mixed with jazz.

Saying that a style of music is better than another because of this or that, is as idiotic as saying that some god is better than another.
||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||

#35
no, that's such a cop-out argument

anyway your analogy sucks. nothing is idiotic as believing in a god, much less one being better than another
#36
just another kid trying to thrust his opinions on everyone, nothing to see here.
#37
where am i thrusting my opinion on everyone else? everything ive said is my opinion

you and everyone else is trying to thrust their opinion on me then, by virtue of the fact you are disagreeing with me.
#38
This is ****ing stupid. Its obvious your not open enough to at least concede a little bit of your musical philosophy. Jazz is what you make of it, and you like what you like. Stop arguing about this and give the TS a recommendation.

“The thing to judge in any jazz artist is, does the man project and does he have ideas.”
"See the Glory Of the Royal Scam"
#40
Actually, motoko, you were the one who first forced your oppinion somone said that John McLauglin is an awesome jazz player. You said his solos were all shredding pentatonic shit, and than he started getting into indian shit. If you don't like it, fine, but if other people like it don't get precious over that.
Page 1 of 2