Why isn't that a standard?

[Soul Stream]

All this makes me wonder if we will revert back to past approaches concerning jazz? I.E....lester young vs. coltrane's approach to give a over-simplification to the issue.

Maybe Baby Face Willette will overtake Jimmy Smith in CD sales soon.

[danasgoodstuff]

Revert back? To some extent we already have, and it ain't pretty...

Now to go slightly off topic, it used to be that Check Berry and Bo Diddly were sorts standards for rock bands, is this even true any more or has something else taken these semi-standards place?

Feeling old,

Dana

[JSngry]

I don't think that reversion to any particular "style" would make a difference. "Melody" is an esthetic, not a technique. Hell, Braxton & Ayler are all highly melodic players. So's Cecil. Ornette, goes w/o saying. Interetellar Space? Hey, that sings like a bird. The "problem" is not in the methodology, it's in the application, and that, like pretty much everythiing else, comes down to individual perspectives and sensibilities. Not the type of music but the type of musician. Style is just the delivery truck. The merchandise inside's the same no matter what.

Edited December 2, 2005 by JSngry

[Rooster_Ties]

Now to go slightly off topic, it used to be that Check Berry and Bo Diddly were sorts standards for rock bands, is this even true any more or has something else taken these semi-standards place?

Well, this is 10+ years ago - but didn't Nirvana cover a Led Zep tune or tune in their early, early days? Nothing officially released (originally) - but the recently released basement tapes box-set.

But that was then, what about now?? Most likely something by R.E.M. - I would imagine.

Edited December 2, 2005 by Rooster_Ties

[Soul Stream]

Well, reversion or no....I could use a good dose of an old-timer playing the shit out of a melody right about now.

[JSngry]

[Joe G]

Hot DAMN!

[Michael Weiss]

Here's a thought - how many players today can play a melody, as opposed to playing a head?

Any piece, any piece, can be approached either way.

And think about it - are there any "standards", jazz originals, show tunes, whatever, that people don't know the melody to?

I think there's a general loss of interest in melody. The mathematics of harmony, characteristic rhythms and readily identifiable yet generalized tonal pallates per se have taken precedence, which is all well and good, but if all audiences want is a beat and/or energy and/or a certain "sound, and if all players are interested in is a good set of changes to blow on and/or a good groove to do it over and/or a certain "sound to do it with, is it any wonder that the same old same old keeps getting trotted out? After all, a ii-V is a ii-V, and if you're going to alter it every which way any way, what difference does it make what order they come in? And if everybody is looking for that good groove, what difference does it make waht you put on top of it? And if everybody's looking for certain sets of timbral qualities, what difference does it make what they're in the service of? Most players today don't sing (metaphorically), they play instruments. It's the difference between specific, personalized interaction and the operation of a machine for general public use.

One thing I've noticed - players who have an appreciation of pure melody tend to have a braoder repertoire than those who don't. And those who have a broad repertoire seem to have a better appreciation of melody than those who don't.

Not sure what, if anything, all this means, but hey.

To quote the title of an obscure Buddy Montgomery tune, "My Sentiments Exactly." You are, as Monk might have said, "an eloquent motherfucker." Right on the money.

Edited December 22, 2005 by Michael Weiss

[GregN]

After all is said and done, I'm a firm believer that it's not what is played but how.

I concur!