Weather Reports has its Tribal Tech, Zeppelin has its bunch of followers, Zawinul has his Kinsey, the Beatles had its Oasis, and EVEN U2 has its Coldplay.
I listened to a little bit of all the clips and didn't find anything to sway me from my opinion that they just don't make music like they used to. If that sounds like grouchy old man, it's fine with me. I don't think anyone since has created great catalogues of music like Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Beatles, Rolling Stones - I could go on but everyone knows the bands I'm talking about. Those are extremely hard acts to follow.
I agree with you Scott, but i want to understand why is this happening now and why it's been like that for the last 30 years.
How can it be possible that simultanously we had Hendrix, Page, Blackmore, Beck but now no one is so innovative and has such good ideas?
How can it be possible that simultanously we had Mahavishnu, Weather Report, Miles Davis and Zappa and now there's not even one single band that can be compared to their greatness?
I have my opinion, but i'm really curious to hear yours.
Throughout history there have been times where certain types of music have shined their brightest. For blues rock and R&B it was the 60's/ 70's, for metal it was the 80's, for many jazz fans it was the 50's when Louis Armstrong, Miles Davis, John Coltrane and those guys were doing their thing. We shouldn't feel too bad, my wife holds a doctorate in classical piano - I haven't heard her play anything lately that wasn't written less than 100 years ago. Many music business people predicted that traditional music was done and that rap was the salvation of the industry - and look what happened, it became huge - and in time, it'll be something else.
There are too many circumstances to count which bring a band together to become a giant of music, like Led Zeppelin. Right place, right time is my only explanation - and lots of talent.
We should keep in mind that "innovative" isn't black and white - there's a lot of gray area. In a way we're all innovators if we manage to sound like us and not someone else - and even if we're not innovators it doesn't mean we can't be great musicians. Also, many musicians we call innovative were highly influenced by other musicians, so they're not as god-like as they appear. Even Zeppelin was highly influenced by blues artists like Muddy Waters, and Hendrix and SRV were extremely influenced by Albert King. Jeff Beck - Les Paul, Tommy Emmanuel - Chet Atkins, Michael Brecker - John Coltrane. They all have their own distinct voices, which were built on the influences of other musicians.
Last edited by Scott Henderson on Tue May 22, 2018 10:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
Maybe this is the same as what Scott wrote but:
could it be that Rock is over?
Like classical music in the style resembling Mozart and Beethoven is over.
Now the only thing to do is repeat.
People still write classical pieces that sound good in the style of Beethoven but the that style is over.
Same with Blues—-people still write blues tunes and play blues great(like Scott or Kirk Fletcher) but the innovation of blues as a style seems to be over.
Maybe rock is dead and all there is to do is rehash the past in interesting ways?
I don't think anything is dead as long as people are playing it. Bruce Forman plays jazz in the style of Charlie Parker and Count Basie - it may not be innovative, but that doesn't mean it's dead and not relevant. Tribal Tech had a lot of fans, but we weren't doing anything new - neither were Aerosmith or AC/DC but they were still great bands. Actually I take that back - Tribal Tech had a very innovative period when we were jamming in the studio and turning those jams into compositions in post-production. To my knowledge, no other band has ever done that.
And not to brag, but I think my take on the blues is innovative, and so are my trio arrangements with distorted chord-melodies using open strings. I feel I'm way more innovative as a guitarist in this context than I ever was when I worked with keyboard players. That doesn't mean I think the style of music I play is innovative because it isn't. People have been playing fusion since the 70's. If I thought my music had to be totally innovative to be relevant, I guess I'd think it's dead and give up.
It seems like jazz can always stay interesting because of the uniqueness of the harmony and the improvisation. What you do doesn’t sound dated because you can be as creative as you want within the context of jazz—-when you play blues you can draw from your jazz vocabulary and it stays inventive.
Maybe rock is a limited form while jazz can incorporate much more so you can still be inventive in jazz?
Not to blow smoke up your skirt, Scott, but there’s no question you play the most amazing, beautiful shit. I don’t think anyone here would argue against you being incredibly innovative. I love it, man. Lately you’ve given me inspiration to play again, and that’s gotta count for something You impart joy and mystery through your music, while at the same time being a badass mothertrucker. Tricky. It’s not like falling off a log, is it! Hope you come back to Vegas soon, so I don’t have to drive to the Potato.
Last edited by junkyard on Wed May 23, 2018 3:37 am; edited 1 time in total
Thanks junkyard, I'm sure trying my best. Dizzy, I think jazz is just as stale as rock from a composing viewpoint. What's the weakest thing about all the clips posted on this tread? It's the writing in my opinion. The jazz musicians who could also write great music were never a large group in the first place, but now it seems like it's an art form completely overlooked by the new generation of jazz musicians. They're playing standards, Avant-garde music, or writing badly. There are exceptions but when it comes to fresh material, jazz in in the same place as rock.
I listened to a little bit of all the clips and didn't find anything to sway me from my opinion that they just don't make music like they used to. If that sounds like grouchy old man, it's fine with me. I don't think anyone since has created great catalogues of music like Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Beatles, Rolling Stones - I could go on but everyone knows the bands I'm talking about. Those are extremely hard acts to follow.
I agree with you Scott, but i want to understand why is this happening now and why it's been like that for the last 30 years.
How can it be possible that simultanously we had Hendrix, Page, Blackmore, Beck but now no one is so innovative and has such good ideas?
How can it be possible that simultanously we had Mahavishnu, Weather Report, Miles Davis and Zappa and now there's not even one single band that can be compared to their greatness?
I have my opinion, but i'm really curious to hear yours.
My 2 cents:
Frank Zappa once pointed out that the gatekeepers in the music industry used to be cigar-chomping old guys who would hear wild, innovative, progressive music and say "I don't know what this is, but the kids will probably like it, what the hell, put it out." Also, people who made the decisions about the artists who got signed were often either musicians or true fans of music who had an appreciation for it. Those guys disappeared, retired, or died off eventually, and the goal of the record industry became the production of music that was easily duplicated and manufactured, which is what you see in the mainstream now.
All that said, the internet has expanded the variety and amount of music that is available to people. If there is an obscure artist or form of music that you like, chances are there's a website, message board, or blog that's devoted to it, and there are multiple outlets where you can hear and buy the music (or not). You're not stuck with what's pushed on American Idol, The Voice, or the radio. There actually is a lot of interesting music out there, and it's more accessible than it's ever been.
i mean i love classic rock,blues,r&b ,funky and jazzy stuff from yesteryear,
but i think there are a lot of great artist now.
even in rock kind of stuff you people like allen hinds and brett garsed it might not be completely original but there very good also as songwriters .
and someone like Richie kotzen that blended all those 70ies styles together with a great voice and horn type legato guitar solo's(i mean his solo records).
they might all not be very famous that is something completely different . even Bach died not being very famous i think his son Carl Philipp Emanuel was more popular then him back then.,its because other great composers after him kept saying he was the master of harmonie that we all now know him as one off the great composer.
one off my new favorite records now is from The Bros Landreth: let it lie that was recorded in 2015 also not original music or innovatief but still great music to listen to.
so i guess im just saying there a lot of great stuff out there if you are just willing to look , and i think Scott is one off the pioneers of pushing the boundaries of the blues ,no doubt.
I agree with you Scott about writing in jazz.
Younger players don’t tend to prioritize writing.
Or you get people like this who gets written up in the New York Times as being this great new innovator:
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Users Currently Chatting
You impart joy and mystery through your music, while at the same time being a badass mothertrucker. Tricky. It’s not like falling off a log, is it! Hope you come back to Vegas soon, so I don’t have to drive to the Potato.