I have a fakebook that I got in the early seventies, and inside the front cover there is a message to the musicians of the day. It read something like:
Today's brides are 20-something and listen to a brand of pop music that may not be YOUR bag ... if you want to work in the industry, you better know songs like "Proud Mary" or you will loose this valuable demographic.

That same advice is valid today - to be lucky enough to play music for money is not only a privilege, but a responsibility. The end result of any performance should be client satisfaction when money is involved, and if you intend to work in a fickle environment, such as entertainment – well, you better be flexible!

Since (semi)retiring to teaching, I have learned to savor my performances. I put more thought into what the crowd will want, and although I almost ALWAYS love the selections I choose – the crowd ultimately chooses the songs for me by their responses. It’s an honor to perform for repeat clients, and I look forward to learning even more of the newer, more “today” songs that I can do justice to. With all THAT said … here are a few gems that are on today’s charts (or not too distant relics) that I simply adore playing. Enjoy! (some spellings may be a bit off … I teach MUSIC, not ENGLISH!)lol

Jason Mraz – I’m Yours
Colbie Callait – Bubbly, Lucky(w/Jason Mraz)
Sarah Barellis – Love Song
Taylor Swift – White Horse, Best Day, Our Song, etc … it's ALL popular
Rain – Soul Sister (I play this on Uke!)
ColdPlay – Viva La Vida
Jaimie Cullum – Wheels, any of his standards
(this guy isn’t quite the hitmaker that Billy Joel was, but he has all his guts and energy – amazing performer)
Maroon V – This Love, Sunday Morning, Won’t Go Home Without You
Ingred Michaelson – Take Me The Way I am
Zack Brown – Toes, Highway 20 ride(drive)
Michael Buble, Haven’t Met You Yet

… this list is growing everyday. Listen to the “kids" stations every now and again – you just might like something! Add a few pop, contemporary tunes to you own bag and see what it does for your universal appeal. These songs are the “Proud Marys” of today – don’t get so wrapped up in your own styles and ignore the passing of time, or you might find yourself out of touch with the crowds that are paying for the music.

Also – research a top40 DJ list once in a while and bring along a few line dance trax to play on your breaks – the single ladies love ‘em and it’ll make you look like a star:
Cupid Shuffle is one that you may need to have for a mixed crowd dance party.
I’m just sayin’...

Have fun everyone – and remember – it’s why we play in the first place! FUN, fun, fun!
(thanx Brian Wilson)

Dave, for entertainers, you're dead on in your observations. That's because the majority of the rewards, other than the financial part come from pleasing your audiences and the resulting positive feedback.

For non-entertainers, it's a little more complicated. That's because the majority of the reward comes from the satisfaction of continuous improvement and the good feeling when you successfully (that means competently) play increasingly challenging material.

Sadly, most non-entertainers, if they stay in the business, end up playing themselves out of a job, or "selling out". In my case, I find satisfaction from producing film and film scores, and choose to play background music at restaurants because of my inability and lack of interest in entertaining. I play "second fiddle" to a ham sandwich, or work for nothing at a jazz club which pays next to nothing.

I wish I were 25% pf the the entertainer you are. I'm not. Therefore, I either have to be satisfied with lots fewer jobs and the ones I get being lower paying, or selling out and
playing material I just can't stand. I won't do that....no George Jones...no Jimmy Buffet...EVER, and the list goes on.

Understand, I'm certainly not saying that you're wrong in your approach at all. You're DEAD ON for entertainers. It's just that, for some of us...probably a small number...we can't do it that way. At best, we "sell out" to a certain degree. I certainly do, and I'm not proud of that.

Be well, and enjoy. I actually like some of the Beach Boys music, although, in the very early 60's, with guys like Dick Dale around, the Beach Boys did great nationally, but couldn't get jobs at home. That was not for lack of talent, but some thought they weren't real surfers and didn't play real surf music.

Russ


[This message has been edited by captain Russ (edited 06-05-2010).]

Yup - this topic was intended for those who wish to "share" the music as opposed to those who need to simply "create" the music. In a small way, we both share a common goal - and that's to make a good product and improve our skills. There are many Jazz greats that play with such technicality that they completely leave me in the dust of the musical message. I appreciate technique, but give me a melody and a groove anyday.

This post is not intended to start debate on how to approach your art - rather, it's a common sense approach to "selling" or sharing your craft in the marketplace.
Entertainer or artist - we all need the "spark" that makes it possible.

Oh, yeah ... and personal views aside, add John Mayer to my list of younger inspirations. (musically only)
Good to hear from you Russ!

Take Jamie Cullum on that list as the perfect example of how to successfully straddle being contemporary AND respecting the past, and push to improve yourself.

I don't see it as an 'either/or thing', Russ... It's possible to do BOTH (and have quite a bit of success in the process). But a head is a head... if you are trying to push yourself eking complexity out of some of the simple basic changes to many of the great standards, why not try to eke out the same complexity out of some of the simple modern tunes, too... Bet you'd get quite a few nods from the kids jazzing up a U2 tune, Coldplay, Jason Mraz, etc..

Let's face it, the jumping off point for a jazz exploration isn't really THAT important. A lot of our favorite jazz was great players spicing up the 'pop' tunes of their day, or generation...

One more point, since Russ mentioned the Beach Boys:Every generation has had an act of tremendous success with marginal talent - how about there:
1950s - Fabian - couldn'd sing a note ... he was pretty
1960s - Monkees - an act created for TV
1970s - Village People - Fluff all the way
1980s - Milli Vanilli - the inspiration for Ashley Simpson
1990s - Madonna - all sex and minimal music, but catchy beats
2000s - Lady Gaga - Madonna revisited

All major chart toppers - none that I consider with more than a modest amount of creative talent. But in the end - if there is a market for it - someone will find a way to sell it.

I guess, for me - it's always been a question of balance. I pick popular songs that I like and obscure tunes that I think my crowd will grow to like - it all creates a mix that defines "my sound". We all need to do the same if we intend to make a career out of this. Remember - if you're an artist who needs to hone his chops, and money is not an issue .... disregard this post. I'm talking to the working stiffs, like me, who make a living making others happy.

"Flintstones", "My favorite Things", "Suicide is Painless" .... all started as commercial material - all took to the jazz stage at the hands of some of the most respected artists of our time. Go figure!

Thing is, I enjoy your stuff, Dave, and I'm sure I would enjoy Diki, if he's anything live like he is on recorded projects.

But, I'd like to point out that I have been able...as skewed towards the musician part as I am, to work at least 4 nights a week for 53 years now, with 9 total weeks off. That's about as much of a "working stiff" as I can imagine.

It would have been a lot easier with a different attitude.

But, that's not me!

Be well, all.

Russ

PS: Absolutely no disagreement here, guys...just a little introspection and wonder if I did the right thing, occasionally.

Russ, you're an old softy and you know it! Your song selection is very popular, and your personality completes the package as a marketable" commodity. As much as you'd like to think that you are musically anti-social ... it just ain't so! You're a creative soul with great taste in music, and luckily - there are lots of folks that live near you with the funds to enjoy it!

"GROUP HUG...GROUP HUG"!

Russ

I saw Callum at the Newport jazz fest a few years ago ... Completely turned me off while singing "I get a kick out of you" and he stood on top of a Steinway grand and everytime he sang the title line he kicked the piano keys ... Guess I expect more respect for an instrument by a 'jazz artist'
t.

I saw Pete Townsend smash a guitar on stage (made me sick). I saw Billy Joel knock over a Yamaha CP80 on stage in Russia (he offered it to them as a souvenir, they told him to take his trash home with him). I heard that Jerry Lee lit his piano on fire at a show (what a waste) ...

Jaimie is not the first piano man to stand on a piano or kick the keys with his feet, but I admire his stage presence, his energy and his musicality, in spite of the unorthodox ways he gets through some changes.
He was quoted last month in Keyboard mag as saying that he only tours with his favorite Yamaha model because it stays in tune the whole show. I really don't see it as abuse, but it's not my style of performance either.

As long as he doesn't ruin anything, it's ok with me. I especially love the Rhodes 54 that he has on stage ... beat up a bit by the road, but still sweet sounding. Then again, I am an admited Rhodes junkie.

You know that Rhodes pianos are being made again to Harold Rhodes's specs and even addressing some of the corners that CBS cut in the 60s, to currently make a Rhodes electric piano that is probably the best ever made. It is even being made now with MIDI output as an available option. http://www.rhodespiano.com/

Liszt used to break strings regularly at his concerts. He often had one or even TWO spare pianos so he could finish the concert... I guess you would be sick at HIM 'mistreating' his instrument that way too?

Here's a question for Russ, and maybe some other jazz purists out there...

What does a tune need, to qualify as a legitimate jumping off point for a jazz exploration? Are there certain complex chords or changes, is there a certain melodic line, or is it simply one of those 'unwritten' rules..?

Something that strikes me is, back in the fifties and sixties, as jazz exploded out of the 'dance music' confines it used to have, the players and writers of their day used tunes that were quite contemporary - pop music, with changes no more or less complex than many of today's tunes. But as jazz has increasingly become a niche 'academic' music, it seems contemporary players (or at least the older ones from back in the heyday) are increasingly unwilling to make those contemporary references that, to be honest, got the original jazzers more of a listen back in the day than if they had chosen less popular heads...

Jazz is a process, it's a treatment, it's a 'style'. But its' source could quite easily be more contemporary tunes, and possibly, garner a bit more interest from the younger generation when they can recognize the head as being something from THEIR generation.

You mentioned a while back about the need to 'educate' your audience as well as just playing to them. But to educate them, first you have to engage them. Don't ignore their generation's music. To be quite honest, I see no difference between taking a fifties pop song and jazzing it up and a 21st century tune and doing the same thing. But I bet a youngster would feel differently! They would be ecstatic...

UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with what he said...

Did he break them by dancing on them or just by striking the keys very hard?!?!? ... And yes, I would be upset with him, the same as I would be upset with Townsend, Joel, Jerry Lee or any other 'jack-ass' who destroys a musical instrument "because they can" and because they are not paying for it ...
My parents taught me something at a young age - a long time before Aretha was singing about it ... that was R-E-S-P-E-C-T ... for people and for property ... mine or anyone else's ... and it is something that is slowly but surely disappearing from our world ...
t.

That's a great question Diki, and one I've often asked but could not get a good - make that 'satisfying' - answer to ... What makes a song Such as "Autumn Leaves" or "That's All" or "Misty" so popular with jazz players???
Also, why were jazz players so caught up with bossa-novas ... they weren't written as 'jazz tunes' were they? ... or WERE THEY? ...
t.

First of all, 'JAZZ' is too general a term to be used in any meaningful way. There is as much difference between Dixieland jazz and bebop and avant garde' jazz and jazz funk and jazz fusion and afro-cuban jazz and and and ....the list goes on. There are different rules for each, including non-improvisational jazz where every single note is scripted (think high school jazz band). It sort of fits Henry Miller's description of porn; "you can't define it, but you recognize it when you see it" (or something to that effect). I guess if you can't handily fit a piece of music into ANY OTHER category, then it must be jazz. Here's another definition; if you can't PLAY it or don't understand it, it must be jazz. Here's another; if it's best played by hollow-eyed junkies, it must be jazz (as opposed to 'regular' addicts, in which case it must be ROCK). BTW, if said junkies have been clean and sober for at least three months, then it must be 'Country' or 'Christian contemporary'.

Here is a SURE-FIRE way to know that it ISN'T jazz; and that's if it's played on an arranger .

chas

You might be right, Chas...but it sure is a lot of fun trying.

Ian

Liszt broke the strings simply playing too hard... but, of course, you could easily say that he shouldn't play that hard, if he knew they were going to break!

Pushing an instrument into sonorities and performance techniques it wasn't designed for can often have consequences. But where would we be if those guys didn't TRY those techniques?

Still playing the fortepiano? Or the virginal or harpsichord? Instruments are the way they are now BECAUSE they were built to withstand the 'abuse' that earlier generations put onto the instruments of their day. And if being more percussive and using a piano as a source of sounds you don't get simply from tickling the ivories ends up in a more modern piano that resists going out of tune when banged around, we are going to be THANKING guys like Jamie Cullum, just as we thank Liszt for the strength of the modern piano.

PLENTY of mistreatment of instruments in the legit avant garde world... I've dabbled my share in 'prepared piano' back in my college days You would probably have hated that, too, Tony

C'mon, Diki ... playing an instrument too hard is one thing, but do youREALLY think that standing on a piano and kicking the keys is going to add something to the way the piano is played in the future ?!?!?!? ...
t.
PS... As I am trying to get the use of the word "hate" out of the family vocabulary, I may have 'disliked' it immensely, but I would have tried not to "hate" it ...
t.


[This message has been edited by tony mads usa (edited 06-07-2010).]

Again, both Diki and Chas make valid points. If nobody listens, it's hard to educate. And, the "catch all" phrase, "jazz" is pretty illusive to define.

"Hitting the pocket", again a pretty overused and ill-defined phrase, is kind of like peeing in a dark pair of pants. You can't see anything, you just get this nice warm feeling.

And that's the point. "Feeling", interpretation and attitude are as much of the definition (if there is one) of jazz as anything.

"Smooth" jazz, in large part, is nothing but 60's thru 80's tunes recorded with a different attitude. We're talking Fatburger,
Foreplay and similar groups. For dining rooms, that's my thing, but "dumbed down just a bit so it is not so busy.

Rory and Tommy Emmanuel do not sell themselves as jazz players, but are certainly able to hold their own on a bandstand with the best jazzers around.

Maroon 5 is not a jazz group, but I certainly enjoy playing their material.

Traditional big-band jazz is certainly jazz, but , while I occasionally fill in for someone, I certainly don't enjoy the rigidity of the format.

My favorite all time writer/performer, Kenny Rankin was hard to categorize, but could certainly hold his own as a unique artist who re-defined parts of many styles. Take some time to Google him...Blackbird, while My Guitar Gently Weeps...Here's that Rainy Day and the beautiful, Hiding Inside Myself
are more than just performances...they are indescribable emotional experiences.

My nebulous definition of jazz is in constant flux. The art form is in constant flux.

And that's part of the wonderful, frustrating challenge.

Small wonder jazzers across time have been tortured souls.

I wouldn't have it any other way.


Russ

[This message has been edited by captain Russ (edited 06-07-2010).]

Another description I like is "controlled chaos" .... like sliding down a ski slope ... "almost" out of control, but mostly "in" ... there's risk and there's education ... hand in hand. Mmmmmm