Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2003 11:28 am
I think Duke Ellington said it best:
"There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the other kind."
"There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the other kind."
Joe Williams does a version of "Everyday I Have the Blues" to the music of "All Blues".julius wrote:Kind of Blue, Miles Davis. "All Blues" and "So What" (I think) have a distinctly blues feeling and song structure, but because the melodies and solos are played modally, they don't sound like traditional blues (with the exception of Cannonball Adderly's playing, because he can't quite wrap his head around Miles' conception for the album). I want to call those songs blues, but I can't wholeheartedly do so. See, here's the problem; blues is so inclusive, once you find something that lies in the gray zone, it almost automatically becomes blues.
Great question. Yes. "Jack the Bear" by Ellington. (It does shift from 12-Bar to AABA, then back to 12 Bar to finish the song, with clear 4-bar transitional phrases marking each shift, but it is primarily done in 12-Bar format.)Shorty Dave wrote:Just curious, Lawrence (or anyone). Are there any swing songs that follow the 12-bar format that you would *not* consider blues?
Bingo...that's what I was looking for. Thank you for answering my question, Reuben!GuruReuben wrote:Thus, Ellington's 1942 cut of "C Jam Blues" is in the Swing style, and therefore I wouldn't call it a Blues tune even though its in the 12 bar blues format.
Another great example! So why don't you consider Jack the Bear blues?Lawrence wrote:Great question. Yes. "Jack the Bear" by Ellington. (It does shift from 12-Bar to AABA, then back to 12 Bar to finish the song, with clear 4-bar transitional phrases marking each shift, but it is primarily done in 12-Bar format.)Shorty Dave wrote:Just curious, Lawrence (or anyone). Are there any swing songs that follow the 12-bar format that you would *not* consider blues?
Basie does it, too.
I know just enough music theory to be dangerous, so don't quote me on this, but I think this is correct.GuruReuben wrote:As you've said, 12 bar blues is a format, more often looked at as a standard chord progression.
Thus music can be played in that format of most any style.
Also, Blues the style is not Blues the 12 bar format, though they usually go hand in hand.
Jack the Bear uses Jazz chord progressions and jazz scales in the melody and the solo work. For a layman, it is sometimes difficult to judge because the jazz and blues music theories overlap in some areas so as to produce similar audible results. Again, I know just enough music theory to be dangerous, here, so I'll leave it at that.Shorty Dace wrote:Another great example! So why don't you consider Jack the Bear blues?
Shorty Dave wrote: I had always thought of songs like C Jam Blues, One O'Clock Jump, etc as both blues songs and swing songs. But now I'm not so sure.
Hmmm...what do other people think? Is "C Jam Blues" (let's take Ellington's 42 cut so people know we're not talking about some random techno version) a blues song?
ps, I did answer your question. You did not ask for any details, just a song example. Maybe next time you should be more clear in your question and I will be more clear in my answer.falty411 wrote: There is no black and white, its more of a sliding scale....to me at least.
Wow... change the word Blues with Groove and you are restating my argument with you against the application of Groove as a term for non-Groove music. So which is it? Or is it both? Is there a reason why one argument works for one type of music but not another?Lawrence wrote:It results in a fairly useless, overbroad definition that runs contrary to everyone's understanding of what "Blues" music is.
Instead, I submit that Blues music must be definied musically: either 1) by a musical theory of chord progressions and scales that produces a coherent genre of music or 2) from the ultimate "sound" that that theory produces and that can be produced through giving a rhythmic "inflection" to they way a song from another genre is played. I prefer the former definition that focuses on musical theory, but I understand that people commonly do use the borader, latter approach in everyday discussion.
No it wasn't and no it isn't. It was use of humor. Even if it was literal it would be a statement of intolerance not of racism, even taking into account that the implied assumption that it is white people who would say otherwise... narrowing the field to those that are intolerant of others to the point of denial of any positive contributions made, prevents an overly broad categorization of all whites as being intolerant and delusional.Lawrence wrote:By labeling in advance (ad hominum) any comment or qualification to the contrary as being racist, it becomes a shockingly racist statement, itself.
Good point, but the second type of "musical" definition applies to "groove swing" music as I see it: the ultimate sound created by the music. What produces groove swing is not the actual notes or compostion or music theory as the the manner of performance and amplification. The bass tends to be amplified more, such that it takes a more omnipresent role in the music. Not only is it more noticeable, in and of itself, but it also provided a stronger foundation or center off of which the solos and melodies can flow. It still is a musical definition, not an emotional ("this is sad, cathartic music") or historical definition. It still focuses on the sound, not the incidentals.D Nice wrote:Wow... change the word Blues with Groove and you are restating my argument with you against the application of Groove as a term for non-Groove music. So which is it? Or is it both? Is there a reason why one argument works for one type of music but not another?Lawrence wrote:Instead, I submit that Blues music must be definied musically: either 1) by a musical theory of chord progressions and scales that produces a coherent genre of music or 2) from the ultimate "sound" that that theory produces and that can be produced through giving a rhythmic "inflection" to they way a song from another genre is played. I prefer the former definition that focuses on musical theory, but I understand that people commonly do use the borader, latter approach in everyday discussion.
You're getting personal and condescending, yet again, in an attempt to artificially elevate yourself. You're brilliant argumentation convinced me, once again. You're right, Damon, I have absolutely no understanding of the differences as well as the similarities between the existing genres.D Nice wrote:If this definition works for "Groove Swing" *shudder*, then any song that uses blue notes is blues, would be a perfectly acceptable definition of blues. I think we can all agree though, that it isn't. S'what happens when you try and invent a new genre without understanding the differences as well as the similarities between the existing genres.
Personal and condescending? Moi? To elevate myself? That is ludicrous. I don't need to elevate myself, I already think I am the center of the universe (not just this one mind you but mathmatically projected alternate universes as well)Lawrence wrote:You're getting personal and condescending, yet again, in an attempt to artificially elevate yourself. You're brilliant argumentation convinced me, once again. You're right, Damon, I have absolutely no understanding of the differences as well as the similarities between the existing genres.D Nice wrote:If this definition works for "Groove Swing" *shudder*, then any song that uses blue notes is blues, would be a perfectly acceptable definition of blues. I think we can all agree though, that it isn't. S'what happens when you try and invent a new genre without understanding the differences as well as the similarities between the existing genres.![]()
Instead of taking the bait (which I somewhat already have), I'll opt to not debate the point further with you.