And your list of rock musicians who supposedly can’t play what the jazz guys do-please! Once you can play the chords and rip through the scales, you can play everything. The only thing after that is songwriting, improvisation, and your own personal style.
I’ve heard this one too many times.
Sorry buddy, once you can play the chords and rip through scales, you can’t play everything. In fact, if that’s all you can do, you can’t really play anything. I never divided technical ability, songwriting, improvisation, and uniqueness. They all are vital qualities of good musicians. I said rock guys can’t - or choose not to - create such demanding music for want of said qualities. Those are the qualities of good music. I want to listen to good music.
Anybody can lock himself in a room for 8 hours a day with a metronome for ten years and play like Chris Impelliteri, but he will have achieved nothing in terms of being able to fluently pick the absolute best notes to play at the best times. Most of the guys on chopsfromhell are like this.
Improvisation and composition are the same things; improvisation just takes place on a much shorter time-scale. I value a piece of music based on how good it sounds, which bears a direct corellation to the talent of the composer and/or improvisor. The rock guys I cited absolutely cannot improvise as freely as good jazz musicians. By freely, I am not talking about pentatonic freak-outs. I’m talking about communicating effectively the best possible musical statement given the context of the song. You can’t do this with a rock vocabulary. It’s like a third grader trying to write a piece of legitimate literature.
I agree, the “big three” guitar gods, Vai, Satch, Malmsteen (and EJ), can play the shit out of the instrument, and they also improvise and compose beautifully, but they are exceptions. They were also ignored by everyone here.
Now if you want to talk about the higher technical classical guitar, that would be a different story. But, then we are talking about really different music, and an entirely different method of guitar play that differs not merely from rock, but from, blues, country, bluegrass, and your beloved jazz.
“Higher technical classical guitar”, as you put it, has far more in common with jazz than any of the other styles you’ve mentioned. They both require the utmost technical ability (bluegrass and country do too). What classical guitar lacks in improvisational demand is interpretation and a requirement for a greater level of technical command. While I never claimed that jazz was harder to play than classical music (I excepted classical from my analysis), it certainly isn’t easier.
Jazz is primarily an instrumental genre. Comparing it to rock/pop is silly and a waste of time.
Well, the question was about bands was it not? Jazz is played by bands. Jazz is therefore relevant to this discussion. Finally, if the music is strong enough, it doesn’t need lyrics to make a statement.
In order to make music that evokes emotional response in an active listener (not as a soundtrack as you chase ass on a saturday night), you need superior musicality - the ability to compose, improvise, and play your instrument. Contrary to popular belief, there are objective standards that measure these things. Rock/pop music is inferior in this regard; most of it is hack-work, though there are exceptions. I will concede that the best classical performances are better than the best jazz performances, but just barely.
I grew up on rock/pop. I still love it. However, the experience you get as an active listener to jazz and classical is far more fulfilling than attentively listening to rock and pop.
