How to better understand the language of jazz?

When I listen to post-1969 Miles Davis, I can understand what's going on. I suppose this is because there is a large rock influence and I have listened to "rock" for almost as long as I've been alive. I "get" In a Silent Way and think it's one of the most amazing albums I've ever heard. For his material before that, I usually have a problem grasping it. I like what I hear, but I can't understand everything. I liken it to watching the Spanish channel on TV: I can grasp some of what's going on, but the intricacies largely elude me. If I wanted to understand Spanish, I could study a book. I've tried to read some books from our local library in the "How to listen to Jazz" vein, but they usually come across as academic and don't help to deepen my appreciation, which really isn't that surprising.

My experiences are fairly the same for other artists. I only started listening to bop jazz in the past few years so it's even hard to to tell what I like versus what I don't.

Is there a way to better understand jazz, outside of just listening to a lot of it (not a bad thing!)?

Classical is more or less the same. I don't understand the language of it. But with jazz I really want to "get it", while with classical I only have a minimal interest at this point in my life.

 

Do what I'm doing. Watch the Ken Burn's Jazz DVD's. Fascinating stuff and I am learning so much about jazz as an art form.

 

I haven't seen the Ken Burns DVDs, but I am almost finished with the large book based on his research. Mostly, this is good for learning history, and learning what or who influenced what or who. It is fascinating. But as far as "getting" the sounds, I imagine it would be helpful to understand music theory and be able to read music, which I can't. But I get most of it just fine because I listen to it all the time. I agree about "In a Silent Way". Really an outstanding record. But I have an easier time going backward from there than I do going foward in Miles' catalog. The best way I have found to explore Jazz music is to listen a lot to a particular musician you like. Then explore forward and backward within their career and learn to recognize their personal sound on all those pieces. Also you will begin to pick up on the personal playing styles of the other musicians appearing on those albums. Since jazz players played with each other all the time, you will then recognize their playing on albums by other band leaders as well. When you get knee deep in that approach, then seek out players that are known to be early influences on that artist. In this way you can work your way backwards in jazz history. I think it is all about finding your perfect point of reference. Sounds like "In a Silent Way" will probably be yours.

 

Nah....I can't read music (although I can play quite a few instruments) and I get it. A lot of jazz players probably didn't know how to read music.

 

My library has the Jazz DVDs. I'll put them on my list. I've been meaning to watch them anyway.

 

I can't stop watching them. The first episode really explains the genesis of jazz.

 

From a "jazzer": Ken Burns is a bit biased toward his favorite artists, but don't let that stop you. That was a big complaint on quite a few jazz message boards at the time--some artists got the brush-off while others were promoted heavily. He does give a good background though. It makes a good springboard for getting into all types of jazz eventually.

As for reading music, I just got done re-reading Dave Brubeck's biography, and while he had piano lessons all while growing up, he could neither read nor write music very well!

 

sure, but for relative newbies like Greg and I, it'll do. I don't think you'll find us on any jazz boards for a while.

 

I saw these...quite nice and informative.

As for the original thread. I'm not exactly sure what you mean? What's to understand, exactly? Sit back and enjoy.

 

I agree with this suggestion. For myself, John Coltrane's A Love Supreme was my point of reference. It was the first non-rock album that really grabbed me, reaching deep down into my core of being and shaking it loose off its hinges.

From there, I started buying and listening to more and more Coltrane, saturating myself with his sounds and the sounds of his fellow players (particularly his "Classic Quartet"!). Eventually, I felt as familiar with the styles of each of Coltrane's band members as I would be with the styles/tones of a guitarist like Hendrix or Van Halen, or the drumming styles/tones of Mitch Mitchell or John Bonham (to name but a few examples).

Just as many of us rock fans can quickly identify the contributions of those unique musicians in a song, so do I now feel like I can tell when Coltrane, Miles Davis, or Elvin Jones (drums) is playing in a jazz performance. Of course, I'm not always right, but even when I'm wrong and realize it later, I learn something more about what I mis-heard/mis-identified about the performance.

Finding points of reference and saturating yourself in those sounds is the best way I can think of to recommend.

Someone else mentioned foreign language as an analogy, and that's a good point. How many of us struggle with "book learning" a foreign language (god, I know I do!), but do much better learning it when visiting a foreign country that speaks the language?

I never felt like I've had a better command of French than the week I spent in southern France several years ago.

Hope this helps.

Craig(VC).

 

I agree. It'll grow on you when you're ready for it. You'll naturally feel the rhythm and appreciate the interplay among musicians. You'll be able to tell whose sound speaks to you honestly and whose bores you to sleep.

The Burns series is a good start. I'd also recommend picking up a good book or a few magazines. Try comparing the spoken words (reviews) with the music. Often you'll be frustrated, but when you "get" what the words mean by listening you'll learn that much more.

 

I am not a fan of the Ken Burns project, but the first chapters in the series are good. Beware of the last chapters of the series, they are misleading.

 

Yes, listening a lot really is the best way.

Other than that there is no answer because jazz is so varied that it would depend on what you're listening to. For example, I listen mainly to music of the "bop" idiom (50s and 60s, small group) and I can point to specific elements that I recognise in the best music and music I like: powerful rhythmic drive, a certain sense of phrasing, and an overall abstract "story" feel accomplished through logically building on one or more musical ideas that pull my mind and ears forward. But for older jazz I'm listening more to swing and melody and tone (though there are obviously crucial elements of all these qualities in all jazz). For "free" jazz I mostly listen for anything that doesn't hurt my ears.

 

Ken Burns relied on Stanley Crouch, Wynton Marsalis, and to a lesser extent Gary Giddins for the information in his film. He pretty much just assembled it, and admits that his knowledge of jazz was limited before he made the movie. He's attracted to big stories that illustrate the history of race relations in the United States, and jazz is a great example of that.
If you follow up by reading any of Giddins' books, or some Martin Williams or Whitney Balliet you'll learn a lot more, and for contemporary music I suggest John Litweiler's The Freedom Principle. It's best to just follow the trail of the musicians and their recordings and continue to support live music.

 

eeek. Don't start with A Love Supreme. Not as a newbie. You'll run from the room. Coltrane's Giant Steps is a better introduction.

 

In A Silent Way, Giant Steps and A Love Supreme are famous because they're NOT representative of jazz. They're unique- experiments and exercises.

A solid Hank Mobley album (Soul Station, Roll Call), any Clifford Brown recording, a good Blakey blue note, or Cool Struttin' are way more accessible and represent the best of mainstream jazz in the late 50s/early 60s, with a good mix of bluesy feel and hard swing.

 

My first Coltrane experience was Live at the Village Vanguard Again, when Trane was blowing what my friends called 'wounded animal cries'. I was in high school. Even though it took a few years, I came back and eventually dug everything. Love Supreme is mellow and spiritual by comparison. In all seriousness, I don't think anyone should be scared away from any music or be told that it may be in any way too advanced for them. I would feel patronized by that attitude. Love Supreme is over 40 years old and it's pretty much considered a warhorse and with Kind of Blue one of the staples of any good jazz library at this point.

 

I can tell you that I didn't understand classical until I saw a PBS show with Wynton Marsalis teaching children about it. I always liked classical, even played it in band, but before that TV show, I never understood what I was listening to.

Jazz? I like fusion because it is closely related to rock and R&B.

 

Sorry, didn't mean it to sound that way. I played Steps first, and it gave me a good feel for Coltrane. A Love Supreme took about 5 plays to really get into. And I enjoy it now.

 

If I understood what you're saying here I would probably still disagree, and so would the musicians who made these recordings. Jazz at its best is a music of experimentation and improvisation. Miles and Trane were two artists in perpetual transition. And I have no idea what you mean by 'exercises'. Yeah, these are unique, but they're also totally representative of jazz, Miles, Trane, and all the other musicians who contributed. I wouldn't place them above, below, or outside of any established jazz tradition. Just like the Blue Note hard bop sessions.

 

Greg,

As a few others have said, immersion is proably the best way to go. Even if you took a course in music theory, you'd still have to immerse yourself in the music itself to get a grip on the conventions and features that make jazz jazz and not something else (although these are as interesting, of course, when they're being stretched or broken as they are when they're being adhered to).

So, my recommendation is this: in addition to getting to know the history of the music though documentaries and books, just start listening both deeply and widely. For the widely part, the books and documentaries will help guide you (so will a big survey box like the old Smithsonian Collection of Classic Jazz, which was my intro. to the music when I was around 18).

For the deeply part I'd do this (it may seem a little contrived, but it really helped be "get" what goes on in a jazz improvisation): get hold of something like Coleman Hawkins famous 1939 recording of "Body and Soul" along with a version of the song sung straight by a good singer (I like the sweetly innocent version Sinatra did for Columbia, which can be found on the "Portrait of Sinatra" set). Listen to the singer sing the song until you've learned it yourself (it doesn't matter if you're a good singer, just listen until you can hum the thing to yourself complete). Then listen to Hawkin's recording. First just enjoy the damn thing, then spend some time trying to hum the song along with Hawkins as he goes through the changes. Try and pay attention to what he does as he does over the grid of the tune, gradually paying more attention to him than you are to yourself. After a while, you will begin to feel the drama and the structure of the solo (it's all just one big solo) even if you can't explain what's going on in music theory terms. Now go out there and listen to a bunch of other jazz versions of the song (there are hundreds of them). I would recommend doing something similar with other famous recordings. Sonny Rollins' version of "Mack the Knife" on "Saxophone Collossus" is another good one (it's long and complicated but the tune is so easy to get into your head that it's remarkably easy to get what Rollins is doing). Same with Coltrane's versions of "My Favorite Things," although he messes a bit more with that than the other two do with their songs. There are lots of good examples.

This all may not immediately help you with modal jazz or freer improvisations, but in those cases, if you've been listening to a lot of the music, you'll begin after a while to figure out more or less where the players are in the field of possibilites offered by the composition and their stylistic approach to it. Listen to a few favorite things over and over until you've sort of memorized some or all of the solos, just like you probably did without even noticing it with every nuance of the rock records you first fell in love with.

As far as reading goes, for what it's worth, I think that Gary Giddins is the best writer on jazz working today. I'd highly recommend browsing around in "Visions of Jazz: the First Century," a fantastic collection of his essays and reviews that covers a very wide range of figures (at least American ones). He's not only a wonderful writer and an enthusiastic fan, but he can describe musical details in a way that's informed by musicology, but not so married to it that he loses a lay listener. Scott Deveaux's book "The Birth of BeBop" is the best book I've ever read about the rise of modern jazz. Ted Gioia's "The History of Jazz" is a serviceable and relable, if somewhat flat history. Alyn Shipton's "A New History of Jazz" is more comprehensive, dealing more with avant-garde jazz and jazz traditons outside the US, but it's far less readable and has a tendency to theorize a bit to cleverly.

Well, that's my advice, anyway. Hope it helps!!

L.

 

I already enjoy A Love Supreme.
I've listened to it enough that I understand it, although I obviously have not discovered its complete value yet.

It's really the bop stuff as well as the earlier swing stuff that I have problems getting into.

 

Yes, I will do this and, now that you mention it, this seems like an obvious but highly excellent recommendation. This is another issue I have, in that standards are not recognizable to me, for the most part. I can appreciate what Miles does with My Funny Valentine in some ways because I'm familiar with Chet Baker's vocal version.

 

I also second the singer/song recommndation.

I personlly don't see how documentaries and books will help one enjoy that actual music. Maybe appreciate where it's coming from, but the point is to enjoy music, not to be Stanely Crouch (heaven forbid!) Studying the cinematogrophy of Citizen Kane won't actually make it more fun.

 

See what I mean? Only 5 plays and you're a regular afficianado. You at least have to go back to Hawk to truly appreciate Trane, anyway.