People are missing the entire thing they just heard the man say. He's saying that rock is a largely, and at that time, almost entirely elementary kind of music, from the point of understanding music. A rock musician (how many amateur guitar players do we all know?) is 999 times out of 1,000 unable to perform jazz at any level, let alone understand the music and the language of jazz. But even an alright jazz musician can learn fairly quickly how to perform rock music, even if they're not going to be the next Eddie Van Halen. He's talking about the reality that the rock world is very much the music of the everyday people, and the everyday people aren't musically educated. But even just a passionate musician, not even a particularly good one, should want to learn what music is to some greater extent. Since, like Bill is saying here, rock music is great in that it taught people to feel the beat, to be familiar with the personal side of music so that they can now be able to go and understand much better the knowledge and theory and craft of music. And some of y'all are arguing about "but my rock music is a LIFESTYLE! IT CAN'T BE REPLICATED!" Yeah? Same said about jazz. Only jazz is harder and takes more discipline. Popular opinion does not change the validity of this statement.
I should have stated that rock was my first musical love. Not bashing rock music at all. Just trying to explain what I hear Bill Evans saying here. And what he's saying is right.
In 10 minutes a Rock player can learn what scales when to play on most standards and, of course, sound just as bad as a jazz player who had 10 minutes to learn to play classic Rock songs. Rock musicians like Brian Wilson, Hendrix and McCartney composed very sophisticated and memorable songs, which takes at least as much discipline, musical knowledge and hard work as simply learning when to play what scale on some standard show tune, which were usually written by non- jazz musicians btw. There are exceptions, but Jazz musicians hardly wrote any memorable tunes. That’s probably why they play so many old show tunes. In Jazz it often seems that soloing is the most important aspect, but most jazz solo’s played by most players aren’t very memorable or interesting, and full of cliches. Bill Evans, great as he was, sounds like the typical bitter jazz musician here. Of course it’s good to learn as much as you can about music theory and such as a musician, but via jazz isn’t the only way. Unfortunately too often jazz musicians act like it is. Very annoying. Btw bitter Rock musicians who belittle musicians from other genres, Disco, Rap, EDM, are just as annoying.
I'm a rock guitarist, trying to dive into jazz, and i have to say that everything he said is spot on. It's not unfair critisism to say that rock is generally easier to play and way less subtle than jazz
you're right. Even Hendrix who is at a pretty high level does most of his soloing at the 12th position. I was playing tunes like red house , voodoo chile, and hey joe and he's doing the same thing. Whereas, Wes Montgomery, Joe Pass, Johnny Smith,etc are swinging hard and creatively against fast moving chords.
It's interesting that in this interview the focus is exclusively on rhythmic phrasing - and not on melodic and harmonic phrasing, which also lie on a similar kind of gradient between rock and jazz. But yeah, now that I've said that, I want to concede that rhythm is probably a better doorway to understanding the difference between the two. You know what it feels like when you're "in the pocket" or "in the groove" and there is a kind of way that everyone in the band is breathing together? That's the common ground for rock and jazz. It's the reason to keep coming back for more. I know they get this in other musical forms, but more as icing on the cake. For us it IS the cake! In a rock-informed performance there's often an agreement to take that mindshare and use it to tighten up the delivery and make it irresistible to anyone listening (and dancing!) I was listening to Desmond Dekker's old 1963 tune "Honor Your Mother and Your Father" and thinking of how nicely they stretch the beat and put a drive into it. That's part of where rock got its roots. In a jazz-driven performance, the implicit agreement is to take the pocket to the next level, see if it can be turned into a conversation. You're not just riding it but taking risks with it. When Evans talks about swinging the beat, that's what he means. Sure the bass may be coming in behind the beat as in the Dekker example I gave, but it wouldn't just rock steady. The bass player is helping to shape the comversation. This is why solos can serve as a bridge into this mindshare, so that every musician can suggest something overt about where they see the conversation going. It's not to take the spotlight. It's to say, here is something about the terms of reference that I feel coming out of this tune, or here is my response to that lovely solo we just heard. Then you all go back into that mindshare with something a little deeper going on, maybe able to listen more sensitively, stretch it some more, take it someplace new and yet trustworthy.
@@AcidTripsFromTheUnderground Playing rock is like swimming in a pool; jazz is like swimming in the ocean. There's no evidence that Jimi Hendrix could solo over a 2-5-1. You can't play pentatonics on those. I'm doing note-for-note versions of Pat Martino solos on tunes like "All Blues" and "Impressions." Hendrix would kick over his amp in frustration.
@@walterstrauhal9709 You could conceivably play a V major pentatonic right through a II V I. I've been a jazz fan all my life but I'd much rather listen to Jimi Hendrix than any Pat Martino clone.
@@dibblethwaite One thing would be if it was just II V I of the same key, but the thing about jazz is that you can have II V I of every existing key, within the same tune. You cannot just stick to one soloing scale, like Hendrix did most of the time. Jimi was a genius in his thing, but playing jazz requires (generally) 10 times the knowledge of music theory than rock. Of course, some styles of rock are almost as difficult as jazz (in the rhythmic and harmonic sense, that is), but mostly, rock is just way simpler. And 'simpler' does not mean 'worse'. I love me some good ol' rock n roll
Bill Evans is likely one of the top five greatest jazz pianists of all time. Anyone studying jazz piano today cannot help but have been influenced by Bill Evans. Even if they have never heard of him, whom they have been listening to was very likely influenced by Bill. He changed the landscape for harmonic structure and improvisation in jazz. His comments are extremely accurate. He's not saying rock bad, just a different bag. As a professional jazz pianist myself, I have made more money playing in rock venues than jazz. That's just a fact. However I can say unequivocally that playing a jazz gig is much more demanding mentally and technically than a rock gig, it just is. But like Bill, I'm not tearing down rock. I love rock, grew up with it and no matter what music you like and play, as long as you put your heard and soul into the music, it will be good.
The interesting thing is that today, rock is dying - hip hop and pop are driving the industry. But jazz, from a commercial standpoint is practically frozen stiff - not that there aren't passionate and interesting artists out there, but from a commercial standpoint jazz makes up about 1% of total music sales (physical media, downloads and streaming). And what's worse, if you look at the top 10 of the year end billboard jazz chart, it includes not only Frank Sinatra and John Coltrane, but also Willie Nelson, Paul Simon and Van Morrison - three albums in the top 10 are Christmas albums - those are great artists and nothing wrong with any of those albums, but it doesn't exactly elicit a vibrant & growing genre. Somewhat more contemporary artists in the top 20 include Jon Batiste, Dave Koz, Diana Krall, Seal and Brian Culbertson - and hey, Tony Bennett & Herb Alpert. Kamasi Washington is the only artist in the 2018 jazz top 20 who's actually pushing boundaries.
As a passionate jazz lover, I first heard rock and rock derivatives as a child. Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, Alan Parsons, Manfred Man, Supertramp, Joni Mitchel, The Police etc. The musical subtleties that these artists were capable of and the frontier workers of jazz rock like John McLaughlin or Miles Davis made me eventually capable to understand the pure jazz. The boundaries between the styles were of course not so blurred at the time of this interview
I came from classical music - went over to Rock - and finally landed in Jazz and I am happy! Jazz contains aspects of classical music as well as of rock and of world music, and it makes free and grooves ...
I don't know about that but I know Buddy Rich is extraordinarily dismissive of country music. In the interview I saw where he trashed country music, I got the feeling he needed some kind of music to hate on and found it in country. Personally, I'm fascinated and enthralled by traditional American music, the roots of popular music and the basis for country. But when it comes to modern country, I can find plenty to love and plenty to hate.
Bill Evans knows a few things. The man's one of the best jazz pianists ever. If you don't dig what he's saying, he's cool with it. If you listen carefully, you might actually learn something. He's not dissing rock music, but making a few distinctions. Your Waltz for Debby is still one of my favs. Love you Bill. Signed, Jazz/Rock drummer
I am a rock musician for last 40 yrs, yep, Mr Evans got it right. OK, I can play some jazz, sometimes we do that, but jazz is simply another universe for us.
@@TheAlaskanBullW02 I think it's much more complex than that. Jazz is an entire language and style that can't just be replicated by using your pinky and reading sheet music. I mean, what good is sheet music if you want to take a solo? Very few jazz musicians write out their solos, it's all improvised. To play jazz you have to have a good connection between your ears, your mind, and your instrument to communicate your musical ideas clearly, and you have to be aware of the sounds and vocabulary that make jazz sound like jazz. It's a lifelong study
@@TheAlaskanBullW02There's a whole lot more to it than that. Technically and in terms of theory it's more complex than the vast majority of rock music. You can read music and play fingerstyle but that's not going to make you play like Pat Metheny or Wes Montgomery.
No jazz musician can play like early ACDC or Ramones. That's why you have only one band that sound like acdc. If it was so easy you would have had millions of clones trying to exploit the same remunerative formula, however nobody has their sound even if they only play a bunch of chords.
As a musician and educator, I’d say it’s obvious that jazz is far more technically and theoretically demanding than rock. BUT I have met amazingly talented jazz musicians who don’t know how to rock and/or roll. Jazz can be like composing a perfect sonnet alone in a room and Rock n’ Roll is like walking up to the girl you like and telling her.
Umm The technical level alone of some rock is no easy task. I can give you examples if you want. As a professional musician I can say with full confidence that I could handle most jazz gigs but certain rock gigs i would have my work cut out for me. The tech level of some of these rock/prog rock guitarists and drummers is off the charts.
Giorgi Verulashvili, many thanks for this video and especially for the photograph of Bill Evans sitting at the piano composing music (writing with his left hand). This is the best photo of Bill Evans, because his contribution to the world of piano harmony and Jazz was not necessarily his playing but his composing and arranging. Bill Evans, more than any other pianist-arranger, created the sound of "Modern Jazz Harmonies" and he did it sitting on the piano bench, experimenting, note-by-note, trial and error, until it sounded good. This photo is the true Bill Evans. The man who invented beautiful modern Jazz harmony, and the fantastic things that came along with that harmony, which were moods, feelings, and emotions. What had been little more than major (happy) and minor (sad) harmony of past generations, was expanded by Bill Evans to cover the endless variety of human emotion. Feelings of sweetness, tenderness, danger, dissonant uneasiness, deep sorrow, pensive uneasiness, sensuousness....and the list goes on and on. His inspiration came not from the Classical music period, but from the Romantic classical period of the late 19th century and early 20th century. Composers like Ravel, Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky and Debussy were his inspiration, and he didn't copy them, but instead, he expanded and improved what they had created harmonically. He was able to convey the harmonies which were previously performed only by large symphonies, into a single instrument, the piano. And, when he played in a trio setting with bass and drums, the trio could convey far more in terms of producing musical textures and landscapes. Musical landscapes which brought out a varied and wide range of emotions in the listeners. As a jazz pianist-arranger-composer, I know the difference between Jazz, Classical, Popular, Rock, Country, Folk, Blues, and Ethnic music styles, because I have played all of them. Bill Evans is correct when he says that given ten minutes, most Jazz musicians can play Rock, however Rock musicians will not be able to play Jazz. The reason is simply that most Rock musicians are not studied, educated and experienced musicians. They have only learned to imitate other Rock musicians, and Rock music is a form of Folk music, that is to say that average folks produce folk music. Folk music is simple, elementary and often crude music. The type of music that regular, average folks can play on simple instruments like guitar, banjo, or harmonica. On the other hand, Jazz musicians, just like Classical musicians, have had years of training from professional music educators, and unlike the simple, elementary folk music, which is played by average folks, to average folk audiences, Jazz and Classical music is played to folks who are far more musically sophisticated. Jazz is also improvised music, which requires far greater listening skills and experience from the audiences. In fact, Jazz is "musicians music" played by musicians for other musicians, and the audience simply observes and listens to the creativity. Comparing Jazz to Rock is like comparing a used hot rod to a formula one race car. You wouldn't expect a street drag racer hot rod-driving amateur to be able to step into a formula one race car and drive it in the Grand Prix. Having said that, I do like Rock music. In fact, I like just about all styles of music, as long as they are written well and played well. There is a place in our lives for junk food, gourmet food and healthy food. The problem is when only one type of food is eaten, which can lead to malnutrition and disease...in this case, the health of a person's soul. To gorge on only one style of music, deprives yourself from the incredible delights and emotional nutrition of so many other great types of emotional food. From a musicians point of view and experience, many of the great Rock players, Country players, and Pop music players actually came from a legitimate and educated musical background. They started learning Classical music as a child, eventually graduated to paying improvised Jazz, and then, because there is little money in playing Jazz, "sold out" as the saying goes, by playing in Pop, Rock, Folk, and Country bands. Since they were trained musicians, they could easily adapt to any style of music. I've known and worked with so many talented and educated legitimate musicians who have played in bands of all musical styles. But when it comes to listening to music, musicians either listen to Classical symphonic music, or Jazz, or they don't listen to much music at all. Since they play music for a living, they often listen very little to music for pleasure. 'Kind of like a plumber playing with pipes on his day off, or a doctor watching medical videos....professionals want a break from what they do as a profession. The bottom line in this argument about Rock music vs. Classical or Jazz music can be summed up in the simple phrase that trumpeter Louis Armstrong, the father of American Jazz, said and every professional musician eventually discovers this to be true: "They ain't but two types of music.....Good, and bad." When any style of music is written well and played or sung well, it is always good music. Even Rap music. Even atonal, dissonant twenty-first modern Classical music. When any style of music is poorly written, and performed even more poorly...it is always terrible. Fortunately, we have a world with lots of good music, in all styles, written by good writers, played by good musicians, and sung by good singers. The gift is never about the box in comes in and the paper it's wrapped in. It's what's inside the box that's important.
Jazz is a language ( like any music), if you cant speak the language it ain't gonna make sense, hence one must study and increase their musical vocabulary. Once you got that down it's how you speak it (make it feel), and quite often it's what we don't say that makes it feel good.This brings a wonderful reward that continues for a life time👍
I liked jazz instantly even without understanding it. But some people just don't understand it, like my dad for instance, he thinks there's no melody in jazz. He just doesn't get it, my mom was the same way. For me, 1940s and 50s jazz was most melodious to my ears. I feel a similar way about metal music, I understand it, and it's incredibly difficult music as well, and a lot of people don't understand and ARE NOT capable of understanding jazz or metal.
One of the beautiful things about music is we don't have to pick just one genre. It's perfectly fine to like and respect them all, and for me just about all of them have their time and place in my life.
I have to pick COMPLEXITY. Beatles are complex music. Not that complex like Mahler, but far more complex than Tina Turner. I dont care about genre…I only care about complexity.
Sorry, Mr Evans; been around rock bands forever, and play piano and a little guitar myself (not jazz), and of course a rock player can’t play jazz, but P.S. a jazz player can’t even sit in on a rock band let alone play even after band practices; a jazz guitarist just doesn’t have the rock beat, and never knows the leads for any rock songs; seen it happen multitudes of times; two completely different styles; so the jazz player is so sophisticated he can’t play basics, but it’s all good! Everyone should play what they know!
Many of the best rock guitarists, came from a jazz context. Let's not forget they have a common ancestor, Blues. I agree with some of the things that Bill Evans said and with others not. But my point was that further than being right or wrong, hell he can explain his self, and has a valid opinion as just as everyone else. I personally think every genre has something to say as long as it represents the musician's thoughts and feelings and it's not just about earning money or pleasing the crowd. Still, I do think the standard Jazz player needs to have reached a certain level of virtuosity that, in other genres, is not required to be considered a good player. So, I think, what Evans is doing here is trying to give a little credit to those players who did an extra effort, just for the sake of reaching new levels of complexity. Nevertheless, in other genres the complexity can lie on other aspects, but at least in Jazz we wouldn't have the masterpieces that we have, without guys like Evans dedicating entire afternoons of their lives to practicing.
@@chrisbatson3402 Articulate indeed, but he can get awfully sidetracked at times. Pat Metheny is another example of a musician of great personal depth/articulation.
Crazy how he talks about Rock coming into the mainstream and pushing Jazz out of focus into a dark corner, and how he kind of resented rock music for that. And 50 years later the same thing happened with Hip Hop music and I can't help but feel the way Bill did about his time period, (I'm a rock guitarist) crazy how history repeats itself
@MemphoWrasslin1 jazz was never as popular as rock? have you heard about the 1920s and 1930s? there wasn't tv and the music industry wasn't as developed, but jazz was the rock music of the first half of the 20th century.
and i don't like when rock musicians cry about hip hop. make music that people care about, and rock will be popular again. but the last really interesting thing in rock music was the white stripes.
@MemphoWrasslin1 yes, there are differences of course. but i'm not sure about the vying with blues. i could be wrong but blues was only popular among a relatively small minority of black americans before the 60s, wasn't it? like hip-hop in the 80s. the real cool mainstream thing (not only in the usa, but in europe as well) was jazz. howlin wolf, son house etc became really popular after the british invasion bands (stones, yardbirds, animals) started to play their music. btw it's interesting to see how musical genres changed in the 20th century, and i'm curious if there will be another new thing after hip-hop(/and electro). i like all kinds of music, but i think it's important to have new sounds and movements (rather than revivals, like todays rock music)
I find Bill's critique to be both honest and insightful. But each kind of music has its own dialect. The great Chicago blues drummer of the 1950s and '60s, Fred Below had played jazz for years (and wore a beret) , but when confronted with playing blues in noisy Chicago taverns, he found he could not provide, or even find, the requisite beat. So he had to re-learn what he was doing for the new situation. Fred went home, listened to records by Muddy Waters, Howlin Wolf and Little Walter. Then came back to the bandstand and he was able to fit in, and admirably. My point is that no one type of music is inherently superior to any other. As Bill said, "you have to own what you do, and live with it."
Sure but one must agree that rap and rock songs are very simple musically and become very boring quickly, whereas jazz and classical are complex and provide great listening pleasure with every audition.
@@navigator1383 i think what jazz has is the progressiveness. It leaves the repetative verse-hook structure. Theres a lot more abstract progressive rock, metal, etc now which I love. Pretty much just jazz with the "dirty grimy" instrumentation of rock bands
Disgusting postmodernism and factually untrue. Not that somebody like you would understand. This "all music is equally good" myth is strictly the domain of the musically ignorant layman.
Everybody is entitled to have an opinion. You don't need to be a genius. Bill was a genius, and it's true that most jazz musicians can play rock, but not many can play it well unless they are also a rock musician. It takes time and study to learn the intricacies of rock. It's not a 20 minute thing. A good jazz musician can play along to a rock song, but not good enough to play a concert with a good rock band. That takes time and attention to detail.
How many Jazz guitar players (who aren't also rock players) know how use a delay pedal to get a specific sound. They probably don't know what the knobs do until they play with them. It's all part of the sound, so it's naive to overlook that stuff. All the different guitar effects take some time to master, and it's not trivial.
It doesn't take decades to master the knobs on your delay pedal, it does however take a lifetime to try to master jazz. Instant gratification is the downfall to us all.
A lot of comments here are confusing the rhythmic tightness and constant pulse in most rock music and assuming that makes it harder than jazz for some players, but two elements are not being discussed. It is the HARMONIC sophistication of jazz which makes it very difficult for most rock musicians, who largely play familiar chords, mostly in root position, and without much development or progression between them. The requirement for extremely sophisticated chord and harmony knowledge makes Jazz of Bill Evans and others so mysteriously unattainable for most rock musicians. The other concept is "SWING". Jazz that swings is not the same thing as the tight, pulse-dominated and usual unvaried rhythm of a given rock piece. That might not always make jazz "superior" to rock which at its best requires great skill also. But there is no doubt the harmonic language of Jazz requires a lot of study and devotion to be convincing. As for the emotional content of both forms, there are inspired and moving examples of both. It is the compositional achievements of the best of pop/rock that are often taken up by jazz players and extended, edited, and sometimes (not always) enhanced to good effect. On the other hand some essentially elegant and simple pop songs have been molested badly by poor jazz interpretation to the point of murdering them. It depends on the quality of the interpretation and the suitability of the original material.
fingerhorn4 what a great comment. To me what matters most in music is what it makes us feel. Jazz although much more sophisticated than rock or Blues can easily enter the realm of the intellectual rather than soulful. In any form of music the cream players will make you feel something and that is the result that music exists for. Why else does anyone listen or start to play? We all felt a deep connection. In the end I find regarding one form as superior is motivated by the ego. Yes Jazz is more sophisticated than other forms of music but ultimately you need a musician with soul to bring it to mean something. I know a lot o& jazz chords (as though chords belong to a genre) but I could never put them together like Bill Evans etc. Where I disagree with Bill is that any Jazz player can play rock. I’ve seen jazz players do it and it never works. They ignore the essence of the feeling or attitude of the genre as well as it’s roots. I think the fact that we are comparing genres in this way shows there are some “hostile” feelings that motivate it. Just play and be done with. Bill says almost that towards the end. In the end we play what attracts us. It’s all a mystery. No one can tell you that your favourite colour is better or worse than someone else’s. Same with anything in life. This mine is better than yours mentality permeates the arts. However the great ones in any art form never seem to have that attitude. It’s the depth that you infuse your music with that matters.
@Jim Labos I would not make the specific distinction between "intellectual" and "soulful" simply for the reasons of music being an artform where the abstract structure of it is essentially the same as intuitive perception of it - our brains are performing the same kind of mathematics unconsciously when we hear music as they do consciously when we analyze it, both things feeding into each other with practice and time - new technique giving rise to new feeling and new feeling giving rise to new technique. On the topic of jazz musicians playing Rock - what you described is the inability to resist the temptation to try and do something out there with the music - jazz musicians just dont want to play Rock, its not in their personality to do some simple in a very thats very bald and big.
@@morrisalanisette9067 sort of, but not really. If that were purely the case, how can you explain an upright bass swinging just by playing quarter notes
To people who talk about progressive rock: these categories are not frigid. Some of the best progressive rock crosses into jazz (fusion) and orchestral music. I don't think Bill Evans is talking about that kind of "rock music".
Coos Oorlog I don’t think the modern technical styles of rock existed when this was recorded. Even if it did, it wasn’t well known, and I doubt Bill had heard it.
@Groove Connected In what way is jazz more sophisticated than good progressive rock? (ie Porcupine Tree, Genesis, some Yes, Rush, King Crimson, etc.) Because there are more chord extensions? I've heard bands like ELP and Steely Dan use #9s, #11s, b13s, etc. Is there more dynamic range and interplay between the musicians in jazz than progressive rock? In general, sure, but it's not like Umphrey's McGee or Dream Theater have never improvised live with sophisticated harmonic language. Furthermore, production, mixing, and general sonic artistry figure significantly more into modern conceptual rock (see: Steven Wilson, Trent Reznor, Radiohead, even Pink Floyd themselves in the late 70's) than in the jazz world - I have yet to meet a jazz musician (and I know some phenomenal ones) who pays anywhere near the meticulous attention to details like EQ'ing, preamp and mic selection, layering, stereo width, mastering, song structure, album presentation, as an intelligent rock artist. It seems as though most of them are happy to lay down their part and leave the actual sonic details to the engineer/producer. That world is changing, and fast, especially in the world of rock. In addition to that, where are the sophisticated social/political commentary concepts in jazz? You could say that that is solely the domain of the lyrics (and all the artists that you mentioned are largely instrumental-based), but obviously jazz vocalists sing lyrics - rarely are they of any sort of sophistication beyond dancing or the various aspects of the mating ritual. Now, like you, I could go on at length making nasty and vapid generalizations about forms of music that I just don't like (like a lot of instrumental jazz being self-indulgent, masturbatory, technical for the sake of brazen technicality etc.), but I actually respect what jazz has to offer in terms of its harmonic, rhythmic, and overall musical language. It's your loss that you're clearly a myopic jazz snob who doesn't take in any influence from the rock world, or at least its more interesting offerings.
I play a lot of country, rock, Chicago blue, bluegrass and bills right. I started looking at jazz over the past couple years and it made me better. Thank you bill for the music 🙏
Bill Evans is one of my favorite jazz pianist with a style that's truly unique. He concentrates and put every ounce of what he has into a song and yes he can swing the heck out of a song. I have a huge selection of his DVDs and enjoy just grabbing one at random, putting it on and sitting back and enjoying it.
As a rock musician trying to learn drums I always thought that the best rock drummers usually had a lot of influence from jazz, so I'm trying to make it a point to study the intricacies of jazz drumming and fuse it with rock like the greats :-)
@@ultimadum7785 -- Precisely why the finest rock drummers were from the '60s (Moonie, Ginger, Densmore, Al Jackson, John Barbata, Danny Seraphine, Mike Tegza) -- they understood those intricacies and did a whole lot more than just give you a loud 2/4 back beat with an 8/8 ride.
Yes. Man it pisses me off when people go on about how hard a rock drummer hits... As if it's a good thing! I play a little bit of drums myself an have never felt the need to whack the crap out of the kit to get what I want, uncomplicated as it may be. .
There are a multitude of examples of session players who appeared on lots of rock recordings who were actually jazz players. In LA this was common practice in the music industry for many years.
When I played what was called free jazz back in the 70s I incorporated everything from blues country rock classical bebop even oriental sounds in my playing I love listening to the Vanilla fudge and Stevie Winwood as well as digging Ornette Coleman and Cecil Taylor if it's great music just enjoy it life's to short to moan and groan about genres
Well put, Man! This COMMENTS section reminds me of the ones where people get into endless, rabid exchanges about whether Clapton is worthy to carry SRV's laundry to the cleaner's, etc. etc, ad nauseam. Genres are what they are. It's one thing to speak, accurately, as Bill does, about the more complex nature of Jazz, it's another to argue endless about which style of music is overall "better," as if we're talking about flavors of ice cream. Sounds like you & I in the same age group & we've had time to learn what's worth what's left of our time. Peace!
I'd say rock is about making it rock which you can do even if you don't possess a lot of technique, but you have to have right feel or if not it won't rock. Pop is about a sticky melody you can't get rid of in your head. Jazz is about the improvisation and the swing and how many ways you can reinterpret a melody or inject an unsuspected harmonic/melodic idea into the structure without collapsing it. Jazz is in every way more sophisticated. But there is beauty in all three.
Italian-Based Classical Music (AKA Western Classical or Classical): HARMONY! Harmony, harmony, harmony. The prime focus is harmonic complexity and liquidy. Jazz: Improvisation (for the most part), Swing (for some styles), and/or harmonic complexity. Rock: The Groove and the Feel Pop: Ear Worm Hip Hop: Solid Beat and Flow Electro: Implementing Noise (non-musical sound)
I like it. Didn't Keith Richards say rock is music for the neck down? I've always liked that. I love Bill Evans. I also love the Sex Pistols, Bach, The Beatles, Count Basie, The Band, Nirvana... Different foods for different moods.
I love rock But Jazz, jazz speaks to me in a different way. Jazz tells a story without words, jazz speaks life. A solo in jazz is almost an extension of yourself, it’s who you are in that feel of the piece.
i began playing guitar over 30 years ago and was purely interested in rock and heavy metal..as my music tastes broadened and my interest in the guitar deepened I found rock very one dimensional and claustrophobic..As my tastes developed and my ear improved, AND my quest for newer and more interesting sounds and my desire to create them, i gravitated more and more towards jazz and jazz laden music..Ultimately it really is the only destination for most advancing players..Even if you don't become a dyed in the wool jazz player, it will also add interest to a musicians primary style..Listen to jazz/country, or jazz/funk, or latin/jazz..they are all amazing.
really cool to hear such a brilliant musician talk rock music without condecension or ridicule.....as the great Duke Ellington said=there are only 2 kinds of music: good music and all the rest
I agree with Keith Otis Edwards's comment about the evolution of popular music along the lines of danceability. Also, what Bill Evans doesn't get into deeply in this clip is the role of "spirit" or "energy" vs. "technique" and "intellectuality." Just as the jazz kids of the early 20th century were excited about the new music that was pooh-poohed by their classically inclined parents, the rock'n'roll kids of the 50s were turned on by the energetic and accessible new music that contrasted with jazz that had evolved from the relatively simple original New Orleans sound through danceable swing to the increasingly complex bebop. In every genre, the distribution of truly exceptional music is always about 5% or less of the total. No matter how technically adept, without the "feel" or "soul," an understanding of the spirit of music, one cannot go beyond being a "competent" artist. Like Chuck Berry says, "I got no problem with modern jazz/unless they try to play it too darn fast/and lose the beauty of the melody/until it sounds just like a symphony." That was the rebellion of the original jazz kids, and likewise that of the original rock'n'rollers. It also brought punk out of the ashes of progressive rock, grunge out of the ashes of "the new wave," and rap out of the ashes of r&b pop. BTW, I love Bill Evans!
Jazz was simple to begin with and so was rock, but if you look from a larger perspective any new musical style goes through a popular stage, an experimental stage, and a reinvention. It's just the world works. Something new arises, and it becomes over saturated with people capitalizing on the thing, people make more and more adjustments to it until it is budded into something entirely different. I love both Jazz and rock and have come to respect the musicianship and craftmenship of both: from Argent, Rush, and ELP to Miles Davis, Parker, and Coltrane.
@ledheadsteve please name those good jazz musicians who played it lame? Certainly not a Branford Marsalis or a Herbie Mann or Sonny Sharock or Jaco or Joe Zawinul or Mike Stern or Miles Davis. But please, go ahead.
Though a rock musician won't be able to play jazz, a jazz musician doesn't have the feel of rock. So it is with blues, rnb etc. It's more the execution of the genre rather than the complexity of it.
While I hold Bill Evans at the highest level of musical genius, and technically he is correct about a Jazz musician being able to play Rock rather than the other way around, it took me a long time to understand that many Jazz artists can't play Rock with the feel needed to stir an audience. Now, Jazz Fusion artists broke that barrier back in early '70s...taking both genres to new heights. Bill is special. His music speaks at the highest and deepest sophisticated levels... Rock is not about being deep. It's about letting strong emotions out without holding anything back. I enjoy both and encourage folks to cross-train in different genres to expand their minds and repertoires. Bless you Bill and rest knowing you've touched the minds and souls of so many listeners.
All I can say is 30+ years ago I lived in a place that had Bill coming to town to play in a local club - I had really liked his stuff as I was studying jazz at a music school at the time and we would often try tunes that he had done...our piano player was close friends with the guy that brought Bill in and got a call as soon as he( Bill ) got into town - the guy said " Bill just got here and he needs some coke right away " - that was kind of the end of the idolization and about a year later I heard that he died - his version of " Blue in Green" still sends chills down my spine
My dad was a great pianist. He taught at Yale school of music and graduated with piano in three years. Paul Hindemith was his professor but my dad was teaching his harmony and counterpoint classes as a student. My dad loved Bill Evans. He also loved Dave Brubeck.
Roberto Filho I was turning pages for my dad when I was 8. 1965 Concert D Steinway. Then started playing oboe at 10 years old in 1965. Still playing, And just recently played Beethoven’s ninth with the Paradise symphony orchestra in two different venues after the camp fire in paradise in honor of the first responders. Full choir and the four soloists. Two great concerts. One at the Oroville State Theatre. One at the Paradise performing arts Center for the first performance after the fire, one of the few surviving buildings left in Paradise, CA.
Bill Evans is basically a product of his generation. Ask any jazz musician from his era and they all say the same. But its true that rock from a technical point of view is easier. But you could never get purely jazz players to sound as good as say The Rolling Stones because the music takes a certain attitude to play it well. It comes from a visceral place thats hard to explain.
@@placeline3502 They can play rock and jazz. But these are highly trained players. These arent guys that sort of picked up instruments and practice in moms basement.
The music has the purpose of making you feel something, I do not take the credit for those musicians who started in their mom's basement, but you should not detract from those musicians who tried with each part of their body to study and do good music
@@placeline3502 Oh no I dont detract from anyone. I agree with you. When I hear people say that learning music theory takes away musical self expression well that makes no sense. There are today indeed "schooled" rock players but Snarky puppy arent just a rock band.
It's like this with almost all forms of art. Literature, music, visual art, dance, architecture, sculpture, tailoring and design, even stuff like gaming rulesets or video game concepts. There are styles that have a broader appeal and they tend to be simpler, more fundamental and more direct. And there are forms that require people to maybe put more effort into learning more to be able to appreciate them, but that journey of learning and understanding is part of what makes it enjoyable and gratifying. Ideally, it's not something you do to get "bragging rights" or to appear more sophisticated for brownie points (although those people certainly exist), but because you really get into the learning and exploration process in itself. I mean shit, it's like this with a lot of practical stuff too, learning about woodworking, gardening a mechanics, cooking and DIY and so on. It's REALLY about the process. It's about feeling the delight that comes with realizing you're able to do something you weren't able to do earlier, or being able to understand something you never caught on to before.
@@BernieHollandMusic be nice, Frank always tried to be entertaining/humorous without concern for collateral damage. I doubt a lot of times he spoke he thought much about what he said before he said it
He's right of course. Very wise words from the legend. Each musical style has their on characteristics and vocabulary. I'm a rock player who is has started to slowly get into jazz. It's a great journey.
you can say whatever u want about jazz vs rock but the reality is that many rock musicians took jazz influence. nowadays, there’s hardly anything left of either of these two genres, and rock musicians are the ones saying that pop stars and rappers couldn’t play rock if they tried. it’s true, too. anyone arguing between genres back then would’ve had a hard time seeing all this corporate music coming and if they did, they’d say wow we were really all in the same boat
Africa didn't have a goddam thing to do with jazz. The superficial attempt to connect Americans with Africans is a sign of extreme ignorance. Jazz was born from the Marching Band, which was British and German. It then evolved in a series of genius leaps from Big Band to Be Bop and then Modal. The snare drum has nothing in common with any other drum in the world, especially not African drums, not even the Senegalese Sabar drums which are played with a stick. African rhythms are almost universally 3/4 or 6/8, with no variation from the main rhythm except for the soloist. As you know, all American music is 4/4, coming from its Marching Band origins. Jazz drumming, especially the likes of Max Roach and Elvin Jones, is a completely different rhythmic universe from African drums, which are much more structured and orderly. Great grooves, sure. But a totally different, unrelated structure. Jazz, like the men and the nation that created it, are One of One, no precedent, no parallel. Africa died on these shores a long time ago. And yes I'm what you call "black" American.
For a fantastic pop/jazz treat, the Bronx child prodigy and genius Laura Nyro's revolutionary pop LP 'Eli and the Thirteenth Confession' (1968) is as technically complex as pop ever got, and is littered with great jazz players like Zoot Sims, Joe Farrell, Artie Schroeck, Bernie Glow, etc, etc. The album is jazz progressions, hybrid chords, polyrhythms, counterpoint, wide intervals and lots of key, tempo, rhythm changes. Nyro is Rock Hall of Fame, Songwriters Hall of Fame. Nyro's LP is one of the most influential songwriting records of the last 50 years. Miles Davis, Leonard Bernstein, and Stephen Sondheim were all Nyro fans. Miles and Nyro actually did some shows together.
There are exceptions like the great Nyro and also Van Morrison jazz-infused albums. Good post you did there...Evans understood...all music is a real wonder
"Rock" back then was very different to rock in following decades. Prog, fusion and psychedelic rock were later attempts to play with great power a music that was challenging and interesting. Often rock musicians started out wanting excitement, fame, money or sex when they are young, but as they mature the fascination of music draws them.
yes and most prog rock does not hold up... because rock is about FEEL and directness - tapping into a primal spirit. Rock me to my "soul" - there's a reason for that. Its not about how hard something is... its about how it speaks.
@@xxHouseInMotionxx this is such a tired and frankly stupid argument. Progressive rock isn't a distinct sound but an ethos. Knowledge of theory is entirely orthogonal to being able to make a personal statement in music. And it is hardly the case that prog rock is confined to one era. This is dad rock bullshit, being afraid of anything that isn't played on 'classic' rock radio and hiding behind bullshit about 'feeling'.
Natesh Mayuranathan no one said anything about technicality baring a personal statement. A Love Supreme? My Favorite Things? Also the original poster said rock “back then” so panties got bunched because prog rock = Tarkus? I know there are contemporary prog bands. Still 10 time signatures in 2 minutes is not exactly known for emotional expression. There’s a scene in Spinal Tap where they play a free form jazz exploration. Maybe you should watch it. The point is - let me throw this at you orthoginally - theory and technique are not prerequisites for value judgments about art. That would be rather a myopic viewpoint right smartyparts? Here’s what I’m saying... and let me back up. I shouldn’t have slammed prog. I’m saying that musical forms with a claim to theory and technique have an easy trap to fall into with virtuosity since the ability to intellectualize and overplay is much easier. Miles Davis understood as he evolved that less is more. It therefore does not mean that his earlier bebop work is trash. Can we live in a world where Liszt and Lamont Young both get it right?
For me my first genre of love was also Rock'n'Roll or rather AC/DC. They just have that cool feel. As I was getting a more experienced player, and more passionate about music I wanted to explore another genre. Between classical and jazz I chose the latter one. At first I didn't really understand it. However through the more bluesy jazz pieces like C-Jam Blues or That Gal Looks Good and through simpler jazz and lofi streams here on youtube, I was able to make a connection to jazz. The bluesy stuff made my feet move almost like AC/DC (since they're also playing lots of blues^^) and lofi and rainy jazz time was really relaxing. Also I found good'ol Django Rheinhardt, whose music for me also has a good drive. That way I got closer and more acommodated to jazz sounds. Then I wanted to really explore jazz and learn to play it. With the use of a school assignment I got all the theory done and created a little jazz piece myself. Furthermore I was able to discover and listen to much more jazz. At that point I was finally able to really enjoy and understand more complicated jazz. After that school assignment, for which I had to spend a lot of time researching stuff and getting bass, drums, guitar and piano on there in a fashionable manner (All instruments by me....alone...), I was finally really able to start practicing (that was from 11th march 2019). Since then I learned a damn lot, on guitar (main instrument) and piano and I am still improving every day :) So in all this time I got to discover many great songs and artists like Bill (obviously), Duke, Coltrane, Fitzgerald, Pass, Davis, Billy Bauer (You need to check im out!), Dave Cliff and many more. I absolutely love to listen to all of these, and the feeling they give, though I also find that Rock'n'Roll is still kinda really my "home base". Jazz conveys more complex, colorful and distinctive feelings whereas Rock'n'Roll just has that simplicity and directness, which comes directly in to your face. Both Genres are great. Both each have their own great many feelings, which they convey. Just because Rock is simpler in it's theory doesn't mean it's bad, as Bill states in this video. It even has (a sort of) improvisation, which is represented by the solo of a song, such as in Highway to Hell, Rock in Peace, Runnin Wild, Soul Stripper etc. All in All, for me both are equally excellent and unique and each with it's great variety in itself. Rock On and Swing It!
Agreed, but I think most of musicians start (and often continue) with rock. I only started to appreciate jazz past 25. I love rock, always did, always will, I grew up with rock and it introduced me to so many other genres and sub genres, from death metal to rockabilly,. Rock made me buy my first bass, rockabilly my first double bass. But I must admit, never a rock piece made me feel, think, resonate and love as much as Waltz for Debby did(which Bill composed). Never a rock bass player gave me what LaFaro gave me. And yes, I think Bill is unequivocally right when he speaks about rock not being subtle. Don't get me wrong, there are subtleties in rock, but it's not the intention of the genre. It explains perfectly why rock is still popular today, and jazz is often seen as bullshit or snob music. I always find the comparison to mathematics very indicative. Most people don't like math because it requires time, thinking and practice to appreciate the subtleties of it, but once you're there, it is truly beautiful. Same goes with jazz (or music in general). I don't respect less rock musicians after hearing Bill. They gave what the people of their time wanted. Rock gave the possibility to so many people to play music. Some musicians wanted to push it further, jazz gave them that possibility (which is not exclusive to jazz), and that is fine. Not everybody digs Bill Evans, and that is fine as well!
Yes, jazz is far more complex than pop, folk, country, rock, blues, etc. But that doesn't mean a jazz player can automatically play in any of those simpler genres and sound authentic if he hasn't spent a lot of time absorbing the musical language of that genre.
And classical is more complex than jazz and both classical and jazz are a dying breed. Pretentious people are killing these genres by trying to pretend that one is more "art" than popular music and not even carrying about reaching out to an audience.
BlackPrince They are dying because people are becoming stupid mindless drones workimg for their bosses with no time to go deeper in all the things that make life worth living... No time for jazz and classical
Thanks for posting this, I hadn't heard it before. Seems like Bill is laying it out there without any hate toward rock musicians. He was very fair in handling the interviewer's suggested bias towards jazz. Every musician has their own personal motivation for playing and deciding what to play and how to play. That's what makes music so great. The only thing that might fly in the face of this argument is that he say's if musicians are doing it for commercial gain, it's cool, as long as they admit it. Not sure how many commercial musicians know, or would admit, they are in it strictly for the money. Most of us agree on dividing an octave into 12 steps. It's always amazing to me how many disparate types of music com out of this system.
False. A good musician sticks to playing only the styles he/she can play with true musical sincerity. Some are more versatile than others. But John Bonham couldn't swing. Buddy Rich couldn't rock to save his life. SRV tried one jazz tune on a record and it was fucking terrible. Yet, unquestionably, these musicians were some of the very best we've ever heard. So you should do away with that prejudice. A good musician plays with sincerity and heart. Neil Young can't play for shit, can't sing for shit, but when you hear him play his music, it's a moving experience, because it's sincere and has heart. That's a good musician.
Bill is 90% right. The members of the Wrecking Crew studio musicians that played on so many of the famous and popular rock and pop songs of the sixties and seventies were largely jazz musicians. Hal Blaine was a jazz drummer who instinctively knew how to play rock 'n roll. But I have worked with many fine jazz drummers that don't have a clue how to approach rock music and play it like a jazz drummer; never playing the same bar two times in a row. The basis of rock is rudimentary. It means establishing and maintaining the groove. It involves constant repetition. Some think that's a bad thing. I think that's what rock 'n roll is about and I think it's possible to appreciate both kinds of music for their own attributes.
[Bill]: You know, the thing that happens with, like...ask a rock musician to play jazz and he can't do it; ask a jazz musician to play rock and he could probably do it in 10 minutes. You know? The reason is that rock is a very direct and elementary form of what, sort of, is happening, and it's very measured. You know, it's an 8 to the bar thing, you know. It's very much on the beat, and a very measured thing. It's not that difficult to feel and to do, I don't think, for a musician that can handle it. And what I always do is learn to feel it and start to handle it. But the jazz thing, I think...my opinion is that it's a little more liquid, and maybe a little more sophisticated, craft-wise and even feeling-wise. You know? A drummer was telling me that play some rock drums like that, he was waiting all these years to hear if somebody ask him, "What is that 'ding di-ga-ding di-ga-ding'?" He says it finally happened. The rock drummer asked to me. He says, "You know, because they're always playing the measured beat. And you know, it's a very subtle thing to play jazz-time, and they could swing and have a pulse. Rock, if anything, is not subtle. This we, I think, we can all admit. [Interviewer]: Right [Bill]: Yeah, it's very direct, and, nothing wrong with being direct, but I don't like to go around corners, even when you're subtle. But uh...that's...I don't know, that's about the only thoughts I guess I have on that, you know? [Interviewer]: To me, one of the things that happens...and it happens in African music, and it happens in a funny kind of polyrhythmic way...when a measured beat, as you say, becomes an unmeasured beat...if you're... [Bill]: Yeah. Yeah. Super-imposed. It's a super-imposed thing. [Interviewer]: ...in your music. It's not that indigenous to jazz. It doesn't need to be. But in the very best jazz. And the mind seems to begin to wander. The mind seems to be able to get free of where the anchored note is. There's polyrhythms like, the...and the 5th beat are coming in, and now it's in 5 and now it's back to... [Bill]: Whatever, yeah. I agree. [Interviewer]: Have you theorized about that? [Bill]: Well, to the extent that I...I used to say, I'm really glad about rock for one reason: that is, it taught the kids where the beat is. You know? It really did, and I would say that the rock generation knows much more where the beat is than for a say, per 100,000 population did. When I was, like, a teenager. You know, the kids used to get out there on the dancefloor and they didn't know where the beat was. They just shuffle around. Very few musicians knew it. That, I feel, that rock has done well. Now that they know where the beat is, the thing is to feel it, and do something a little less obvious with it. That's what I would think. You know, and that's perhaps one reason why a lot of young kids are coming into jazz, because they can feel the beat. And now they realize that what they hear is not just a string of abstract, unrelated rhythmical things or whatever...that there's a pulse underlying the whole thing, and it doesn't have to be constantly pounding. But I'm beginning to sound like I have a gripe, and maybe somewhere deep inside me, I did resent a little bit the fact that...that terrific phenomenon of rock in the '60s pushed jazz into a corner. Because I don't wanna be controversial, I don't wanna get into controversies, I really don't. It doesn't matter to me. I'm where I'm at. They're where they're at. Let's all be happy. You know? And all I ever say about anybody is: whatever you do, you got to live with it. You know? If you're in it for a buck, then fine as long as you know it. If you're in it for soul-food, food for your soul or spirit, that's great too. Or both. Whatever. Whatever it is, you have to live with it, and I'm happy to live with what I'm doing, and somebody else probably hates it. So that's all I can say, really. [Interviewer]: Is that what separates jazz from rock finally...other than musical considerations...that jazz is "for the music", and rock is more "money and music"? [Bill]: I really don't know. I guess you'd have to do a survey of rock musicians and ask them what their motivations are, if you could get honest answers. I think a lot of them would admit they want fame, popularity, girls, whatever, you know. And I'm sure those things all play some part in any person who's a professional...professionally ambitious in any field of music. But where those things line up numerically, as far as priorities, might vary a little bit.
I omitted a lot of the parts where he says "umm" and "you-know", just to make it easier to read. Also, it was hard to understand the interviewer when they were talking at the same time, especially because the microphone was closer to Bill for the recording.
i have an immense amount of respect for bill evans. he was an astonishingly innovative musician, composer and improviser. a pivotal figure in the evolution of american music. and, in spite of his accomplishment and talents, he is no more of an expert on rock music than my grandmother. and pay close attention to what he says, "...somewhere deep inside me i did resent a little bit that terrific phenomenon of rock in the 60s pushed jazz into a corner..." that's the reveal. i've played with many jazz musicians and improvisers. in reality, most jazz musicians cannot play rock music convincingly (and they know it) and it is nowhere near as easy or automatic as bill evans would like to think. just ask miles who did try to play rock music. i began playing music in chicago as a blues musician. and i heard the same kind of condescension about blues from both jazz and rock players. but none of them can play authentic blues to save their lives. the same is also true of most jazz players. and vice versa rock guys trying to play jazz. if and when you attempt to use whatever music you love to denigrate another kind of music, you only reveal how insecure you are about yourself. both jim hall and bob brookmeyer who played with bill evans spoke about times when bill could not go onstage because he was so insecure about his playing. even the greatest musician is still just a human being and subject to all the frailties, foibles and fragility as other humans. including bill evans. would this be a good time to remind people that bill evans was a junkie for most of his life and it actually killed him. so i think you might want to stop making him into a deity.
He's surprisingly respectful, and actually has something to say instead of being the guy who doesn't like new music. My only issue it's good tendency to say "yeah" every 0.3 seconds when the other guy's speaking 😂 At least if he has a mic as well, it would be reasonable
I agree mostly with what he says but 70s rock (and from then on) can be really delicate and full of subtleties. Same with heavier music, people just like to generalise since either they don't know enough about a style of music or they've heard the more famous, mainstream pieces and make assumptions based on that. Loved his point on how rock teaches where the beat is.
Does anybody know when this was recorded? Evans' career started in the '50s, and he lived until 1980. The rock music that he's referring to could be anywhere from pre-Beatles to post-Zappa. I heard him refer to the "60s" in the past; maybe this was in the '70s? I wonder how deeply he knew the rock catalog, and what he might have thought of King Crimson, ELP, or the Hendrix Experience.
@@sega62s I'd do more homework on hip-hop if I were you .. J Dilla, Pete Rock, Flying Lotus, DJ Shadow's "Endtroducing", Karriem Riggins, Robert Glasper Experiment..I'll even go as far as to say Boards of Canada and Aphex Twin! Anyways, people like Nile Rogers and James Mtume are great examples of disco musicianship at its finest.
@@Howardlandscapingllc Pretty easy to say hip hop is sophisticated if you include artists who don't make hip hop. IDM was influenced by Jungle, not hip hop. If you include anything beat with constant syncopation, then sure.
spot on! Billy completely nailed it talking about such a controversial subject in a brilliant, straightforward and elegant way. a true master speaking. what a delightful mind! love him even more now 😊 👏 👏 👏 ❤️ ❤️ ❤️
I think the Grateful Dead give a unique model within the rock genre of a band that is focused on the subtle interplay of musicians and trying to create music in the moment. They are certainly not on the same level of sophistication harmonically as someone like Bill Evans, but they have their own form of interplay that is conversational in the same way jazz is, but with the added dynamic and sonic dimensions.
It's a given that jazz is generally more difficult to play than rock (or country or R&B or etc.). Most "classical" music poses its own challenges and is often devilishly difficult to play. I love Bill Evans, so no bones to pick here. But the idea that one who prefers jazz (or any other genre) to a a more common music is ignorant or snobbish or both. I know many people, myself included, who LOVE great jazz (Duke, Parker, Miles, Monk, Coltrane, Mingus, and so on) but also love great rock (Beatles, Stones, Hendrix, Clash, Radiohead, and so on) with equal fervor. And we also love Bach, Bartok, Hank Williams, The Stanley Brothers, Stevie Wonder, Pubic Enemy, and so on as well. What I prefer to hear depends on something deep in my mind that I can't really access. I love it that Charlie Parker admired a lot of country music for what it was, that Miles loved Ravel, that Stravinsky and Shostakovitch loved jazz, that Big Boi loves Kate Bush, and, well you get the point. Miles said that Kind of Blue was his version of an African ballet but that it didn't come out that way. But he ended up with a record for the ages (but isn't necessarily MY favorite Miles). These cross connections are precisely where innovation comes in, or one way. A bass player who listens to nothing but, say, Jaco Pastorius, is going to find his or her limits pretty soon. A bass player will learn a lot by listening to De Machaut or Hawaiian guitar music. I used to proclaim my hatred for Taylor Swift, but, in reality, she ain't that bad, even if I'm not her audience. Well enough rambling.
I agree with him in that, once you have the basics, you naturally want to go further and can’t understand why most people won’t. Can’t understand that most adults listen to the same music they did when they where teens AND won’t add anything merely sophisticated or challenging in their track lists in their whole lives. Would they do that with books, movies, art in general, conversations etc? Do we?
Songs are like photo albums that bring back memories and feelings from the past, like an anchor of the personal and collective identity, much like the social function of an anthem. When you stop assimilating new experiences in your life you stop listening to new music, and visa versa, when they stop making good music it's harder to assimilate new experiences.
You look at this like there's an objective hierarchy. There isn't. Jazz is what it is, and some find it enjoyable whilst others don't. You may find it sophisticated and challenging. Another may find it tedious and repetative and rambling. So What.
M.Q. Macabre That sounds to me like you are ignoring the fact that humans start to learn as soon as they are born are we only stop when we die. We usually don’t appreciate things when we are 5 the same way as when we are 10, and then not the same as when we are 15 etc etc I’m talking about change, learning, evolution... not hierarchy, I may not express myself well enough.
I agree with him started as a rock guitarist and now I'm in jazz . rock is very elementary but jazz is sophisticated and elementary part is very important to master for me i find satisfaction in jazz now
I wonder, what rock and roll are we talking about here? Technically, rock and roll was born in the 50's and most of the songs were played by session musicians with a strong background in jazz. It frequently had sophisticated chord voicings, a deep swing, and liberal use of country and blues elements, two musical forms also informed by jazz. 60's rock saw an influx of more 'garage' level bands and simpler compositions, but still, a great many acts had musicians with jazz training, and if you watch old videos of those acts you'll see drummers using traditional grip and guitarists with their instruments strapped high and playing with studied technique. They just had a different agenda for their skills. In any case, what is NOT easy to do regardless of genre is to write music which captures the imagination of a generation, and what is even harder still is to write music which inspires future generations. In that light, the number of artists who make the grade is relatively low, jazz rock or otherwise. And I'm grateful for all of them.
That was in the States, where early Rockers came from Jazz & Blues background mainly. In England, however, many of them who have been influenced by Blues, had the drive for fame, glory and girls first rather than mastering instruments. They learned guitar playing by two fingers and catchy riffs and made to the studios.
I wish the interviewer ask him about Bands like Blood,Sweat and Tears who got kids like me just going into my teenage years listening to Jazz and Chicago although they were mainly Rock.They did add the Jazz element to their Music.
Keep in mind that Bill Evans died in 1980... I'm not sure when this was recorded but real shreddy prog had only been around a few years when he died... Its likely he's talking about bands like Led Zeppelin, Who, Beatles etc...
He is actually right especially if you take the big bands from his era, they lacked understanding of music. John Jones was the only Zeppelin with musical background because he played jazz and arranged orchestras before his Zeppelin days, which sometimes frustrated him because he had to glue the band together to stay on rhythm almost always. I believe no one of the Beatles could read a music sheet, and that is why they had George Martin in studio almost aways for all their string arrangement, and list goes on. Rock is imperfect, sloppy, and messy and that what makes it unique. The problem with modern rock is they try to make it so perfect that doesn't sound like Rock anymore.
he’s right! I’m a jazz musician, but I play in Rock groups all the time. I fly by the seat of my pants in those gigs, but jazz is something i have to think about.
He talks cool and plays fantastic and he is right - that's why Miles and Mahavishnu Orch. & Zappa invented jazz- rock - but still the jazz sensibility is missed - great artist !
He’s absolutely right, generally speaking... But it would be interesting to know when exactly this interview happened and what examples of rock he had in mind. 50s / early 60s rock’n’roll was indeed quite primitive, to be honest. Even the early Beatles were pretty simple. But rock also evolved, absorbed some harmonic influences from jazz and became more sophisticated. I wonder what Bill Evans would think about Sting or Steely Dan.
People are missing the entire thing they just heard the man say.
He's saying that rock is a largely, and at that time, almost entirely elementary kind of music, from the point of understanding music. A rock musician (how many amateur guitar players do we all know?) is 999 times out of 1,000 unable to perform jazz at any level, let alone understand the music and the language of jazz. But even an alright jazz musician can learn fairly quickly how to perform rock music, even if they're not going to be the next Eddie Van Halen.
He's talking about the reality that the rock world is very much the music of the everyday people, and the everyday people aren't musically educated. But even just a passionate musician, not even a particularly good one, should want to learn what music is to some greater extent. Since, like Bill is saying here, rock music is great in that it taught people to feel the beat, to be familiar with the personal side of music so that they can now be able to go and understand much better the knowledge and theory and craft of music.
And some of y'all are arguing about "but my rock music is a LIFESTYLE! IT CAN'T BE REPLICATED!"
Yeah? Same said about jazz. Only jazz is harder and takes more discipline. Popular opinion does not change the validity of this statement.
I should have stated that rock was my first musical love. Not bashing rock music at all. Just trying to explain what I hear Bill Evans saying here. And what he's saying is right.
Derric Perez You summed it up perfectly.
In 10 minutes a Rock player can learn what scales when to play on most standards and, of course, sound just as bad as a jazz player who had 10 minutes to learn to play classic Rock songs. Rock musicians like Brian Wilson, Hendrix and McCartney composed very sophisticated and memorable songs, which takes at least as much discipline, musical knowledge and hard work as simply learning when to play what scale on some standard show tune, which were usually written by non- jazz musicians btw. There are exceptions, but Jazz musicians hardly wrote any memorable tunes. That’s probably why they play so many old show tunes. In Jazz it often seems that soloing is the most important aspect, but most jazz solo’s played by most players aren’t very memorable or interesting, and full of cliches. Bill Evans, great as he was, sounds like the typical bitter jazz musician here. Of course it’s good to learn as much as you can about music theory and such as a musician, but via jazz isn’t the only way. Unfortunately too often jazz musicians act like it is. Very annoying. Btw bitter Rock musicians who belittle musicians from other genres, Disco, Rap, EDM, are just as annoying.
It is a little early in the day for a night club comedy routine but okay you gave it a shot.
Your youtube page is as empty as your comment...
I'm a rock guitarist, trying to dive into jazz, and i have to say that everything he said is spot on. It's not unfair critisism to say that rock is generally easier to play and way less subtle than jazz
you're right. Even Hendrix who is at a pretty high level does most of his soloing at the 12th position. I was playing tunes like red house , voodoo chile, and hey joe and he's doing the same thing. Whereas, Wes Montgomery, Joe Pass, Johnny Smith,etc are swinging hard and creatively against fast moving chords.
It's interesting that in this interview the focus is exclusively on rhythmic phrasing - and not on melodic and harmonic phrasing, which also lie on a similar kind of gradient between rock and jazz. But yeah, now that I've said that, I want to concede that rhythm is probably a better doorway to understanding the difference between the two.
You know what it feels like when you're "in the pocket" or "in the groove" and there is a kind of way that everyone in the band is breathing together? That's the common ground for rock and jazz. It's the reason to keep coming back for more. I know they get this in other musical forms, but more as icing on the cake. For us it IS the cake!
In a rock-informed performance there's often an agreement to take that mindshare and use it to tighten up the delivery and make it irresistible to anyone listening (and dancing!) I was listening to Desmond Dekker's old 1963 tune "Honor Your Mother and Your Father" and thinking of how nicely they stretch the beat and put a drive into it. That's part of where rock got its roots.
In a jazz-driven performance, the implicit agreement is to take the pocket to the next level, see if it can be turned into a conversation. You're not just riding it but taking risks with it. When Evans talks about swinging the beat, that's what he means. Sure the bass may be coming in behind the beat as in the Dekker example I gave, but it wouldn't just rock steady. The bass player is helping to shape the comversation.
This is why solos can serve as a bridge into this mindshare, so that every musician can suggest something overt about where they see the conversation going. It's not to take the spotlight. It's to say, here is something about the terms of reference that I feel coming out of this tune, or here is my response to that lovely solo we just heard. Then you all go back into that mindshare with something a little deeper going on, maybe able to listen more sensitively, stretch it some more, take it someplace new and yet trustworthy.
@@AcidTripsFromTheUnderground Playing rock is like swimming in a pool; jazz is like swimming in the ocean. There's no evidence that Jimi Hendrix could solo over a 2-5-1. You can't play pentatonics on those. I'm doing note-for-note versions of Pat Martino solos on tunes like "All Blues" and "Impressions." Hendrix would kick over his amp in frustration.
@@walterstrauhal9709 You could conceivably play a V major pentatonic right through a II V I. I've been a jazz fan all my life but I'd much rather listen to Jimi Hendrix than any Pat Martino clone.
@@dibblethwaite One thing would be if it was just II V I of the same key, but the thing about jazz is that you can have II V I of every existing key, within the same tune. You cannot just stick to one soloing scale, like Hendrix did most of the time. Jimi was a genius in his thing, but playing jazz requires (generally) 10 times the knowledge of music theory than rock. Of course, some styles of rock are almost as difficult as jazz (in the rhythmic and harmonic sense, that is), but mostly, rock is just way simpler. And 'simpler' does not mean 'worse'. I love me some good ol' rock n roll
Amazing to be able to hear Bill's voice so clearly
Bill Evans is likely one of the top five greatest jazz pianists of all time. Anyone studying jazz piano today cannot help but have been influenced by Bill Evans. Even if they have never heard of him, whom they have been listening to was very likely influenced by Bill. He changed the landscape for harmonic structure and improvisation in jazz. His comments are extremely accurate. He's not saying rock bad, just a different bag. As a professional jazz pianist myself, I have made more money playing in rock venues than jazz. That's just a fact. However I can say unequivocally that playing a jazz gig is much more demanding mentally and technically than a rock gig, it just is. But like Bill, I'm not tearing down rock. I love rock, grew up with it and no matter what music you like and play, as long as you put your heard and soul into the music, it will be good.
How about keyboard players like Keith Emerson, Rick Wakeman, Jon Lord, Ray Manzarek, Dr. John?
The interesting thing is that today, rock is dying - hip hop and pop are driving the industry. But jazz, from a commercial standpoint is practically frozen stiff - not that there aren't passionate and interesting artists out there, but from a commercial standpoint jazz makes up about 1% of total music sales (physical media, downloads and streaming). And what's worse, if you look at the top 10 of the year end billboard jazz chart, it includes not only Frank Sinatra and John Coltrane, but also Willie Nelson, Paul Simon and Van Morrison - three albums in the top 10 are Christmas albums - those are great artists and nothing wrong with any of those albums, but it doesn't exactly elicit a vibrant & growing genre. Somewhat more contemporary artists in the top 20 include Jon Batiste, Dave Koz, Diana Krall, Seal and Brian Culbertson - and hey, Tony Bennett & Herb Alpert. Kamasi Washington is the only artist in the 2018 jazz top 20 who's actually pushing boundaries.
This is the biggest humblebrag ive ever seen lol
Lou Di Falco no he’s being extremely ignorant for such an educated man. This is Bill being a dip shit
@@michaelfuria4257 I'm pretty sure all of these guys listened to Mr Evans.
As a passionate jazz lover, I first heard rock and rock derivatives as a child. Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, Alan Parsons, Manfred Man, Supertramp, Joni Mitchel, The Police etc. The musical subtleties that these artists were capable of and the frontier workers of jazz rock like John McLaughlin or Miles Davis made me eventually capable to understand the pure jazz. The boundaries between the styles were of course not so blurred at the time of this interview
"America hates music, but loves entertainment."
---Frank Zappa
---paraphrased.
👍
I love FZ. But he said a lot of dumb things. That was one of them.
@@PaulSouthernCross i don't know, i think he meant most people have a superficial taste in music. Hence " Pop. "
@@StephenS-2024 I was responding to what he said. Not to what I think he might have meant.
"its a very subtle thing to play jazz time and make it swing and have a pulse" damn true
I came from classical music - went over to Rock - and finally landed in Jazz and I am happy! Jazz contains aspects of classical music as well as of rock and of world music, and it makes free and grooves ...
Bill is a cool dude.
I know. He seemed somewhat hip to rock music. Her certainly wasn't dismissive of it, like most jazz musicians.
Unsure where you got the idea, but I don't believe most jazz musicians are dismissive of rock...
I don't know about that but I know Buddy Rich is extraordinarily dismissive of country music. In the interview I saw where he trashed country music, I got the feeling he needed some kind of music to hate on and found it in country. Personally, I'm fascinated and enthralled by traditional American music, the roots of popular music and the basis for country. But when it comes to modern country, I can find plenty to love and plenty to hate.
@@PaulTheSkepticThey put Round-up on the roots. I call modern country GMO country.
@@goedeck1 I mean yeah it's funny but I'm a supporter of GMO's. It's really extraordinarily safe.
Bill Evans knows a few things. The man's one of the best jazz pianists ever. If you don't dig what he's saying, he's cool with it. If you listen carefully, you might actually learn something. He's not dissing rock music, but making a few distinctions. Your Waltz for Debby is still one of my favs. Love you Bill. Signed, Jazz/Rock drummer
I am a rock musician for last 40 yrs, yep, Mr Evans got it right. OK, I can play some jazz, sometimes we do that, but jazz is simply another universe for us.
Learn how to use your pinky and learn so read sheet music and that’s bout it tbh
@@TheAlaskanBullW02 I think it's much more complex than that. Jazz is an entire language and style that can't just be replicated by using your pinky and reading sheet music. I mean, what good is sheet music if you want to take a solo? Very few jazz musicians write out their solos, it's all improvised. To play jazz you have to have a good connection between your ears, your mind, and your instrument to communicate your musical ideas clearly, and you have to be aware of the sounds and vocabulary that make jazz sound like jazz. It's a lifelong study
You're honest. Your ego doesn't lead you astray.
@@TheAlaskanBullW02There's a whole lot more to it than that. Technically and in terms of theory it's more complex than the vast majority of rock music. You can read music and play fingerstyle but that's not going to make you play like Pat Metheny or Wes Montgomery.
No jazz musician can play like early ACDC or Ramones. That's why you have only one band that sound like acdc. If it was so easy you would have had millions of clones trying to exploit the same remunerative formula, however nobody has their sound even if they only play a bunch of chords.
As a musician and educator, I’d say it’s obvious that jazz is far more technically and theoretically demanding than rock. BUT I have met amazingly talented jazz musicians who don’t know how to rock and/or roll.
Jazz can be like composing a perfect sonnet alone in a room and Rock n’ Roll is like walking up to the girl you like and telling her.
100%
Umm The technical level alone of some rock is no easy task. I can give you examples if you want. As a professional musician I can say with full confidence that I could handle most jazz gigs but certain rock gigs i would have my work cut out for me. The tech level of some of these rock/prog rock guitarists and drummers is off the charts.
@@musicforheadphones2731delulu
Agree!
@@musicforheadphones2731 false.
Giorgi Verulashvili, many thanks for this video and especially for the photograph of Bill Evans sitting at the piano composing music (writing with his left hand). This is the best photo of Bill Evans, because his contribution to the world of piano harmony and Jazz was not necessarily his playing but his composing and arranging. Bill Evans, more than any other pianist-arranger, created the sound of "Modern Jazz Harmonies" and he did it sitting on the piano bench,
experimenting, note-by-note, trial and error, until it sounded good. This photo is the true Bill Evans. The man who invented beautiful modern Jazz harmony, and the fantastic things that came along with that harmony, which were moods, feelings, and emotions. What had been little more than major (happy) and minor (sad) harmony of past generations, was expanded by Bill Evans to cover the endless variety of human emotion.
Feelings of sweetness, tenderness, danger, dissonant uneasiness, deep sorrow, pensive uneasiness, sensuousness....and the list goes on and on. His inspiration came not from the Classical music period, but from the Romantic classical period of the late 19th century and early 20th century. Composers like Ravel, Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky and Debussy were his inspiration, and he didn't copy them, but instead, he expanded and improved what they had created harmonically. He was able to convey the harmonies which were previously performed only by large symphonies, into a single instrument, the piano.
And, when he played in a trio setting with bass and drums, the trio could convey far more in terms of producing musical textures and landscapes. Musical landscapes which brought out a varied and wide range of emotions in the listeners. As a jazz pianist-arranger-composer, I know the difference between Jazz, Classical, Popular, Rock, Country, Folk, Blues, and Ethnic music styles, because I have played all of them. Bill Evans is correct when he says that given ten minutes, most Jazz musicians can play Rock, however Rock musicians will not be able to play Jazz.
The reason is simply that most Rock musicians are not studied, educated and experienced musicians. They have only learned to imitate other Rock musicians, and Rock music is a form of Folk music, that is to say that average folks produce folk music. Folk music is simple, elementary and often crude music. The type of music that regular, average folks can play on simple instruments like guitar, banjo, or harmonica. On the other hand, Jazz musicians, just like Classical musicians, have had years of training from professional music educators, and unlike the simple, elementary folk music, which is played by average folks, to average folk audiences, Jazz and Classical music is played to folks who are far more musically sophisticated. Jazz is also improvised music, which requires far greater listening skills and experience from the audiences. In fact, Jazz is "musicians music" played by musicians for other musicians, and the audience simply observes and listens to the creativity. Comparing Jazz to Rock is like comparing a used hot rod to a formula one race car. You wouldn't expect a street drag racer hot rod-driving amateur to be able to step into a formula one race car and drive it in the Grand Prix.
Having said that, I do like Rock music. In fact, I like just about all styles of music, as long as they are written well and played well. There is a place in our lives for junk food, gourmet food and healthy food. The problem is when only one type of food is eaten, which can lead to malnutrition and disease...in this case, the health of a person's soul. To gorge on only one style of music, deprives yourself from the incredible delights and emotional nutrition of so many other great types of emotional food.
From a musicians point of view and experience, many of the great Rock players, Country players, and Pop music players actually came from a legitimate and educated musical background. They started learning Classical music as a child, eventually graduated to paying improvised Jazz, and then, because there is little money in playing Jazz, "sold out" as the saying goes, by playing in Pop, Rock, Folk, and Country bands. Since they were trained musicians, they could easily adapt to any style of music.
I've known and worked with so many talented and educated legitimate musicians who have played in bands of all musical styles. But when it comes to listening to music, musicians either listen to Classical symphonic music, or Jazz, or they don't listen to much music at all. Since they play music for a living, they often listen very little to music for pleasure. 'Kind of like a plumber playing with pipes on his day off, or a doctor watching medical videos....professionals want a break from what they do as a profession.
The bottom line in this argument about Rock music vs. Classical or Jazz music can be summed up in the simple phrase that trumpeter Louis Armstrong, the father of American Jazz, said and every professional musician eventually discovers this to be true:
"They ain't but two types of music.....Good, and bad."
When any style of music is written well and played or sung well, it is always good music. Even Rap music. Even atonal, dissonant twenty-first modern Classical music. When any style of music is poorly written, and performed even more poorly...it is always terrible. Fortunately, we have a world with lots of good music, in all styles, written by good writers, played by good musicians, and sung by good singers.
The gift is never about the box in comes in and the paper it's wrapped in. It's what's inside the box that's important.
Well said
I second that emotion: Well done, Jennifer.
Jazz is a language ( like any music), if you cant speak the language it ain't gonna make sense, hence one must study and increase their musical vocabulary. Once you got that down it's how you speak it (make it feel), and quite often it's what we don't say that makes it feel good.This brings a wonderful reward that continues for a life time👍
I liked jazz instantly even without understanding it. But some people just don't understand it, like my dad for instance, he thinks there's no melody in jazz. He just doesn't get it, my mom was the same way. For me, 1940s and 50s jazz was most melodious to my ears. I feel a similar way about metal music, I understand it, and it's incredibly difficult music as well, and a lot of people don't understand and ARE NOT capable of understanding jazz or metal.
One of the beautiful things about music is we don't have to pick just one genre. It's perfectly fine to like and respect them all, and for me just about all of them have their time and place in my life.
I have to pick COMPLEXITY. Beatles are complex music. Not that complex like Mahler, but far more complex than Tina Turner. I dont care about genre…I only care about complexity.
@@leonardoiglesias2394 I think you don't want complexity at all. Just simple beauty, which is the hardest to create.
@@denominator208 beauty is subjective, complexity is measurable
"Yeah....yeah.
Yeah. Yeah......Right. Whatever.
I agree."
I know. I was hearing, "yeah . . . yeah . . . you're talking now so I'm not really listening . . . yeah . . . so anyway,"
It only sounds obnoxious because the mic is so close to Bill and you can't hear the interviewer.
this section of the comments is for failed rock musicians 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@greg55666 ok salty rocker
Lmao
So articulated, i miss musicians that can answer that way when they are asked about what they're doing.
Sorry, Mr Evans; been around rock bands forever, and play piano and a little guitar myself (not jazz), and of course a rock player can’t play jazz, but P.S. a jazz player can’t even sit in on a rock band let alone play even after band practices; a jazz guitarist just doesn’t have the rock beat, and never knows the leads for any rock songs; seen it happen multitudes of times; two completely different styles; so the jazz player is so sophisticated he can’t play basics, but it’s all good! Everyone should play what they know!
Many of the best rock guitarists, came from a jazz context. Let's not forget they have a common ancestor, Blues. I agree with some of the things that Bill Evans said and with others not. But my point was that further than being right or wrong, hell he can explain his self, and has a valid opinion as just as everyone else. I personally think every genre has something to say as long as it represents the musician's thoughts and feelings and it's not just about earning money or pleasing the crowd. Still, I do think the standard Jazz player needs to have reached a certain level of virtuosity that, in other genres, is not required to be considered a good player. So, I think, what Evans is doing here is trying to give a little credit to those players who did an extra effort, just for the sake of reaching new levels of complexity. Nevertheless, in other genres the complexity can lie on other aspects, but at least in Jazz we wouldn't have the masterpieces that we have, without guys like Evans dedicating entire afternoons of their lives to practicing.
Musicians today don't know what they are doing
You should listen to Pat Martino speak. He is very articulate and very direct.
@@chrisbatson3402 Articulate indeed, but he can get awfully sidetracked at times. Pat Metheny is another example of a musician of great personal depth/articulation.
Crazy how he talks about Rock coming into the mainstream and pushing Jazz out of focus into a dark corner, and how he kind of resented rock music for that. And 50 years later the same thing happened with Hip Hop music and I can't help but feel the way Bill did about his time period, (I'm a rock guitarist) crazy how history repeats itself
@MemphoWrasslin1 jazz was never as popular as rock? have you heard about the 1920s and 1930s? there wasn't tv and the music industry wasn't as developed, but jazz was the rock music of the first half of the 20th century.
and i don't like when rock musicians cry about hip hop. make music that people care about, and rock will be popular again. but the last really interesting thing in rock music was the white stripes.
@MemphoWrasslin1 yes, there are differences of course. but i'm not sure about the vying with blues. i could be wrong but blues was only popular among a relatively small minority of black americans before the 60s, wasn't it? like hip-hop in the 80s. the real cool mainstream thing (not only in the usa, but in europe as well) was jazz. howlin wolf, son house etc became really popular after the british invasion bands (stones, yardbirds, animals) started to play their music.
btw it's interesting to see how musical genres changed in the 20th century, and i'm curious if there will be another new thing after hip-hop(/and electro). i like all kinds of music, but i think it's important to have new sounds and movements (rather than revivals, like todays rock music)
And jazz pushed modern-classical music into a corner.
@@benjaminmoloy7163 its not that simple.
I find Bill's critique to be both honest and insightful. But each kind of music has its own dialect. The great Chicago blues drummer of the 1950s and '60s, Fred Below had played jazz for years (and wore a beret) , but when confronted with playing blues in noisy Chicago taverns, he found he could not provide, or even find, the requisite beat. So he had to re-learn what he was doing for the new situation. Fred went home, listened to records by Muddy Waters, Howlin Wolf and Little Walter. Then came back to the bandstand and he was able to fit in, and admirably. My point is that no one type of music is inherently superior to any other. As Bill said, "you have to own what you do, and live with it."
Happy to read a Fred Below reference in this commentary:-)
Some people are born with naturaly polyrythmic ear and a straight beat is unnatural to them.. Maybe thats the case
Sure but one must agree that rap and rock songs are very simple musically and become very boring quickly, whereas jazz and classical are complex and provide great listening pleasure with every audition.
@@navigator1383 i think what jazz has is the progressiveness. It leaves the repetative verse-hook structure. Theres a lot more abstract progressive rock, metal, etc now which I love. Pretty much just jazz with the "dirty grimy" instrumentation of rock bands
Disgusting postmodernism and factually untrue. Not that somebody like you would understand. This "all music is equally good" myth is strictly the domain of the musically ignorant layman.
He's Bill Evans. He's entitled to his own opinion. The man was a genius. Pure and simple.
Everybody is entitled to have an opinion. You don't need to be a genius. Bill was a genius, and it's true that most jazz musicians can play rock, but not many can play it well unless they are also a rock musician. It takes time and study to learn the intricacies of rock. It's not a 20 minute thing. A good jazz musician can play along to a rock song, but not good enough to play a concert with a good rock band. That takes time and attention to detail.
"the intricacies of rock". Ha ha ha ha ho ho ho ho ha ha ha ha. Funny stuff.
Well, at the NBA all-star game, Fergie proved that anybody can sing Jazz. You don't even have to be able to sing.
How many Jazz guitar players (who aren't also rock players) know how use a delay pedal to get a specific sound. They probably don't know what the knobs do until they play with them. It's all part of the sound, so it's naive to overlook that stuff. All the different guitar effects take some time to master, and it's not trivial.
It doesn't take decades to master the knobs on your delay pedal, it does however take a lifetime to try to master jazz. Instant gratification is the downfall to us all.
“Yeah, yeah, right, yeah, I agree.”
"What ever, yes."
A sweet, humble, generous-spirited and articulate man, who just happens to be a genius
As a three chord rock hack guitar player he is spot on. I watch some of these jazz cats and my jaw drops.
"Direct! I don't like to go around corners, even when you're subtle!" Beautiful.
A lot of comments here are confusing the rhythmic tightness and constant pulse in most rock music and assuming that makes it harder than jazz for some players, but two elements are not being discussed. It is the HARMONIC sophistication of jazz which makes it very difficult for most rock musicians, who largely play familiar chords, mostly in root position, and without much development or progression between them. The requirement for extremely sophisticated chord and harmony knowledge makes Jazz of Bill Evans and others so mysteriously unattainable for most rock musicians. The other concept is "SWING". Jazz that swings is not the same thing as the tight, pulse-dominated and usual unvaried rhythm of a given rock piece.
That might not always make jazz "superior" to rock which at its best requires great skill also. But there is no doubt the harmonic language of Jazz requires a lot of study and devotion to be convincing.
As for the emotional content of both forms, there are inspired and moving examples of both. It is the compositional achievements of the best of pop/rock that are often taken up by jazz players and extended, edited, and sometimes (not always) enhanced to good effect. On the other hand some essentially elegant and simple pop songs have been molested badly by poor jazz interpretation to the point of murdering them. It depends on the quality of the interpretation and the suitability of the original material.
fingerhorn4 what a great comment. To me what matters most in music is what it makes us feel. Jazz although much more sophisticated than rock or Blues can easily enter the realm of the intellectual rather than soulful. In any form of music the cream players will make you feel something and that is the result that music exists for. Why else does anyone listen or start to play? We all felt a deep connection. In the end I find regarding one form as superior is motivated by the ego.
Yes Jazz is more sophisticated than other forms of music but ultimately you need a musician with soul to bring it to mean something. I know a lot o& jazz chords (as though chords belong to a genre) but I could never put them together like Bill Evans etc. Where I disagree with Bill is that any Jazz player can play rock. I’ve seen jazz players do it and it never works. They ignore the essence of the feeling or attitude of the genre as well as it’s roots.
I think the fact that we are comparing genres in this way shows there are some “hostile” feelings that motivate it. Just play and be done with. Bill says almost that towards the end. In the end we play what attracts us. It’s all a mystery. No one can tell you that your favourite colour is better or worse than someone else’s. Same with anything in life.
This mine is better than yours mentality permeates the arts. However the great ones in any art form never seem to have that attitude. It’s the depth that you infuse your music with that matters.
@Jim Labos I would not make the specific distinction between "intellectual" and "soulful" simply for the reasons of music being an artform where the abstract structure of it is essentially the same as intuitive perception of it - our brains are performing the same kind of mathematics unconsciously when we hear music as they do consciously when we analyze it, both things feeding into each other with practice and time - new technique giving rise to new feeling and new feeling giving rise to new technique.
On the topic of jazz musicians playing Rock - what you described is the inability to resist the temptation to try and do something out there with the music - jazz musicians just dont want to play Rock, its not in their personality to do some simple in a very thats very bald and big.
Swing is just triplets with a rest in the middle
@@morrisalanisette9067 sort of, but not really. If that were purely the case, how can you explain an upright bass swinging just by playing quarter notes
@@rustydomino yeah im wrong i think im thinking of a shuffle rhythm. swing is similar but is more than that
“To do something less obvious with it” that’s beautiful
And look at what happened after that. Progressive rock came along and made it subtle and thoughtful and sophisticated.
Seems like Bill was spot on.
To people who talk about progressive rock: these categories are not frigid. Some of the best progressive rock crosses into jazz (fusion) and orchestral music. I don't think Bill Evans is talking about that kind of "rock music".
Coos Oorlog I don’t think the modern technical styles of rock existed when this was recorded. Even if it did, it wasn’t well known, and I doubt Bill had heard it.
Groove Connected you’re right but you’re kind of a dick about it
@Groove Connected In what way is jazz more sophisticated than good progressive rock? (ie Porcupine Tree, Genesis, some Yes, Rush, King Crimson, etc.) Because there are more chord extensions? I've heard bands like ELP and Steely Dan use #9s, #11s, b13s, etc. Is there more dynamic range and interplay between the musicians in jazz than progressive rock? In general, sure, but it's not like Umphrey's McGee or Dream Theater have never improvised live with sophisticated harmonic language.
Furthermore, production, mixing, and general sonic artistry figure significantly more into modern conceptual rock (see: Steven Wilson, Trent Reznor, Radiohead, even Pink Floyd themselves in the late 70's) than in the jazz world - I have yet to meet a jazz musician (and I know some phenomenal ones) who pays anywhere near the meticulous attention to details like EQ'ing, preamp and mic selection, layering, stereo width, mastering, song structure, album presentation, as an intelligent rock artist. It seems as though most of them are happy to lay down their part and leave the actual sonic details to the engineer/producer. That world is changing, and fast, especially in the world of rock.
In addition to that, where are the sophisticated social/political commentary concepts in jazz? You could say that that is solely the domain of the lyrics (and all the artists that you mentioned are largely instrumental-based), but obviously jazz vocalists sing lyrics - rarely are they of any sort of sophistication beyond dancing or the various aspects of the mating ritual.
Now, like you, I could go on at length making nasty and vapid generalizations about forms of music that I just don't like (like a lot of instrumental jazz being self-indulgent, masturbatory, technical for the sake of brazen technicality etc.), but I actually respect what jazz has to offer in terms of its harmonic, rhythmic, and overall musical language. It's your loss that you're clearly a myopic jazz snob who doesn't take in any influence from the rock world, or at least its more interesting offerings.
@@rizz7604 yes
@Groove Connected Keith Emerson could have succeeded in ANY genre he wanted to play. Steve Howe too. There have been some total geniuses in prog rock.
I play a lot of country, rock, Chicago blue, bluegrass and bills right. I started looking at jazz over the past couple years and it made me better. Thank you bill for the music 🙏
Sometimes you crave for Beef Wellington. Sometimes you crave for a Big Mac. If one of the two were missing, there would be an error in your life.
I am in for a surprise for you! The combined the two into the Big Mac Beef Wellington.
ua-cam.com/video/eDakaX4fCFw/v-deo.html
@@athas12 Great find! ... but I'll pass :-) That hybrid recipe looks like a failed mutation to me...
McDonald's is gross
I’ll stick to Beef Wellingtons.
Meat is murder, jazz is not. Though some rock fans might argue it's murder on their ears, and same with some jazz fans about rock of course
Most people are pissing and whining because they didn't listen up to 2:30 when he begins to commend rock.
Well said, Bill. Now that's a musical genius speaking if I've ever heard one.
Bill Evans is one of my favorite jazz pianist with a style that's truly unique. He concentrates and put every ounce of what he has into a song and yes he can swing the heck out of a song. I have a huge selection of his DVDs and enjoy just grabbing one at random, putting it on and sitting back and enjoying it.
For drummers it's so true. The subtlety and lightness of touch required to play jazz drums is unheard of for a rock drummer.
As a rock musician trying to learn drums I always thought that the best rock drummers usually had a lot of influence from jazz, so I'm trying to make it a point to study the intricacies of jazz drumming and fuse it with rock like the greats :-)
And the intention and directness of rock drumming is unheard of for a jazz drummer.
@@waltzguy14151 Your are dead wrong, my friend. Listen to Art Blakey or Elvin Jones in the '60s and wake your directness up, Jim.
@@ultimadum7785 -- Precisely why the finest rock drummers were from the '60s (Moonie, Ginger, Densmore, Al Jackson, John Barbata, Danny Seraphine, Mike Tegza) -- they understood those intricacies and did a whole lot more than just give you a loud 2/4 back beat with an 8/8 ride.
Yes. Man it pisses me off when people go on about how hard a rock drummer hits... As if it's a good thing! I play a little bit of drums myself an have never felt the need to whack the crap out of the kit to get what I want, uncomplicated as it may be. .
So insightful. Evans was a master of shuffling the beat in his beautiful music.
I just make whatever music I like. I learned a lot by jazz and rock alike.
Priceless wisdom from a true master.
There are a multitude of examples of session players who appeared on lots of rock recordings who were actually jazz players. In LA this was common practice in the music industry for many years.
And they were terrible hahahahahaha... a jazz musician has as much business playing rock as a rock musician has playing jazz.
When I played what was called free jazz back in the 70s I incorporated everything from blues country rock classical bebop even oriental sounds in my playing I love listening to the Vanilla fudge and Stevie Winwood as well as digging Ornette Coleman and Cecil Taylor if it's great music just enjoy it life's to short to moan and groan about genres
Well put, Man! This COMMENTS section reminds me of the ones where people get into endless, rabid exchanges about whether Clapton is worthy to carry SRV's laundry to the cleaner's, etc. etc, ad nauseam. Genres are what they are. It's one thing to speak, accurately, as Bill does, about the more complex nature of Jazz, it's another to argue endless about which style of music is overall "better," as if we're talking about flavors of ice cream. Sounds like you & I in the same age group & we've had time to learn what's worth what's left of our time. Peace!
I always thought that rock/pop was about the "song" and jazz was about the music.
I can't imagine a more perfectly concise way to express this idea. This is a perfect summary of the difference.
I'd say rock is about making it rock which you can do even if you don't possess a lot of technique, but you have to have right feel or if not it won't rock. Pop is about a sticky melody you can't get rid of in your head. Jazz is about the improvisation and the swing and how many ways you can reinterpret a melody or inject an unsuspected harmonic/melodic idea into the structure without collapsing it. Jazz is in every way more sophisticated. But there is beauty in all three.
Italian-Based Classical Music (AKA Western Classical or Classical): HARMONY! Harmony, harmony, harmony. The prime focus is harmonic complexity and liquidy.
Jazz: Improvisation (for the most part), Swing (for some styles), and/or harmonic complexity.
Rock: The Groove and the Feel
Pop: Ear Worm
Hip Hop: Solid Beat and Flow
Electro: Implementing Noise (non-musical sound)
I like it. Didn't Keith Richards say rock is music for the neck down? I've always liked that. I love Bill Evans. I also love the Sex Pistols, Bach, The Beatles, Count Basie, The Band, Nirvana... Different foods for different moods.
Speaking from a composer's perspective, the difference is night and day. Rock/pop are one step above children's music.
I love rock
But Jazz, jazz speaks to me in a different way.
Jazz tells a story without words, jazz speaks life.
A solo in jazz is almost an extension of yourself, it’s who you are in that feel of the piece.
This guy is a luminary. His musical achievement gives him mentorship credentials. Listen up.
i began playing guitar over 30 years ago and was purely interested in rock and heavy metal..as my music tastes broadened and my interest in the guitar deepened I found rock very one dimensional and claustrophobic..As my tastes developed and my ear improved, AND my quest for newer and more interesting sounds and my desire to create them, i gravitated more and more towards jazz and jazz laden music..Ultimately it really is the only destination for most advancing players..Even if you don't become a dyed in the wool jazz player, it will also add interest to a musicians primary style..Listen to jazz/country, or jazz/funk, or latin/jazz..they are all amazing.
really cool to hear such a brilliant musician talk rock music without condecension or ridicule.....as the great Duke Ellington said=there are only 2 kinds of music: good music and all the rest
So nice to hear the voice of this genius!
I agree with Keith Otis Edwards's comment about the evolution of popular music along the lines of danceability. Also, what Bill Evans doesn't get into deeply in this clip is the role of "spirit" or "energy" vs. "technique" and "intellectuality."
Just as the jazz kids of the early 20th century were excited about the new music that was pooh-poohed by their classically inclined parents, the rock'n'roll kids of the 50s were turned on by the energetic and accessible new music that contrasted with jazz that had evolved from the relatively simple original New Orleans sound through danceable swing to the increasingly complex bebop.
In every genre, the distribution of truly exceptional music is always about 5% or less of the total. No matter how technically adept, without the "feel" or "soul," an understanding of the spirit of music, one cannot go beyond being a "competent" artist. Like Chuck Berry says, "I got no problem with modern jazz/unless they try to play it too darn fast/and lose the beauty of the melody/until it sounds just like a symphony."
That was the rebellion of the original jazz kids, and likewise that of the original rock'n'rollers. It also brought punk out of the ashes of progressive rock, grunge out of the ashes of "the new wave," and rap out of the ashes of r&b pop.
BTW, I love Bill Evans!
Imagine a rock musician giving such fine and insightful comments about Jazz.
Jazz was simple to begin with and so was rock, but if you look from a larger perspective any new musical style goes through a popular stage, an experimental stage, and a reinvention. It's just the world works. Something new arises, and it becomes over saturated with people capitalizing on the thing, people make more and more adjustments to it until it is budded into something entirely different. I love both Jazz and rock and have come to respect the musicianship and craftmenship of both: from Argent, Rush, and ELP to Miles Davis, Parker, and Coltrane.
What a thrill to hear him speak. Just as eloquent and interesting to listen to as his music.
Jazz is to rock what blue grass is to country. Lyle mays was a disciple of Bill Evans. He played a lovely tribute to him ( September 15th )
Marc Scordato So... where do you put Chet Atkins? Is he country?
This interview is amazing
As someone in the jazz and rock world I will say that Rock has come a long way. I have seen good jazz musicians play some pretty lame rock and roll
@ledheadsteve please name those good jazz musicians who played it lame? Certainly not a Branford Marsalis or a Herbie Mann or Sonny Sharock or Jaco or Joe Zawinul or Mike Stern or Miles Davis. But please, go ahead.
He's so humble and generous to other genre. Live and let live kind of guy. Such a giant. Thanks for the amazing music and performance. RIP
? Any jazz guy can play any rock in 10 minutes. That is arrogant and ignorant.
Though a rock musician won't be able to play jazz, a jazz musician doesn't have the feel of rock. So it is with blues, rnb etc. It's more the execution of the genre rather than the complexity of it.
Thanks for sharing, Who ever is with Bill, must be from NY or somewhere back East. You can sense his energy
While I hold Bill Evans at the highest level of musical genius, and technically he is correct about a Jazz musician being able to play Rock rather than the other way around, it took me a long time to understand that many Jazz artists can't play Rock with the feel needed to stir an audience. Now, Jazz Fusion artists broke that barrier back in early '70s...taking both genres to new heights. Bill is special. His music speaks at the highest and deepest sophisticated levels... Rock is not about being deep. It's about letting strong emotions out without holding anything back. I enjoy both and encourage folks to cross-train in different genres to expand their minds and repertoires. Bless you Bill and rest knowing you've touched the minds and souls of so many listeners.
All I can say is 30+ years ago I lived in a place that had Bill coming to town to play in a local club - I had really liked his stuff as I was studying jazz at a music school at the time and we would often try tunes that he had done...our piano player was close friends with the guy that brought Bill in and got a call as soon as he( Bill ) got into town - the guy said " Bill just got here and he needs some coke right away " - that was kind of the end of the idolization and about a year later I heard that he died - his version of " Blue in Green" still sends chills down my spine
My dad was a great pianist. He taught at Yale school of music and graduated with piano in three years. Paul Hindemith was his professor but my dad was teaching his harmony and counterpoint classes as a student. My dad loved Bill Evans. He also loved Dave Brubeck.
Roberto Filho I was turning pages for my dad when I was 8. 1965 Concert D Steinway. Then started playing oboe at 10 years old in 1965.
Still playing, And just recently played Beethoven’s ninth with the Paradise symphony orchestra in two different venues after the camp fire in paradise in honor of the first responders. Full choir and the four soloists. Two great concerts. One at the Oroville State Theatre. One at the Paradise performing arts Center for the first performance after the fire, one of the few surviving buildings left in Paradise, CA.
Jeff Zabelski Would like to read more
Bill Evans was one of the greatest, if not the greatest, jazz pianist that ever lived. His music lives on as does his memory. All hail Bill!
Bill Evans is basically a product of his generation. Ask any jazz musician from his era and they all say the same. But its true that rock from a technical point of view is easier. But you could never get purely jazz players to sound as good as say The Rolling Stones because the music takes a certain attitude to play it well. It comes from a visceral place thats hard to explain.
Snarky puppy?
@@placeline3502 They can play rock and jazz. But these are highly trained players. These arent guys that sort of picked up instruments and practice in moms basement.
The music has the purpose of making you feel something, I do not take the credit for those musicians who started in their mom's basement, but you should not detract from those musicians who tried with each part of their body to study and do good music
@@placeline3502 Oh no I dont detract from anyone. I agree with you. When I hear people say that learning music theory takes away musical self expression well that makes no sense. There are today indeed "schooled" rock players but Snarky puppy arent just a rock band.
indeed, but sadly, jazz and rock have one thing in common, those genres are dying
It's like this with almost all forms of art. Literature, music, visual art, dance, architecture, sculpture, tailoring and design, even stuff like gaming rulesets or video game concepts.
There are styles that have a broader appeal and they tend to be simpler, more fundamental and more direct. And there are forms that require people to maybe put more effort into learning more to be able to appreciate them, but that journey of learning and understanding is part of what makes it enjoyable and gratifying. Ideally, it's not something you do to get "bragging rights" or to appear more sophisticated for brownie points (although those people certainly exist), but because you really get into the learning and exploration process in itself.
I mean shit, it's like this with a lot of practical stuff too, learning about woodworking, gardening a mechanics, cooking and DIY and so on. It's REALLY about the process. It's about feeling the delight that comes with realizing you're able to do something you weren't able to do earlier, or being able to understand something you never caught on to before.
I once climbed to the apex of a jazzy rock....that can’t be beat.
Moving a person's soul...that's the measure of a musician.
NICE
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny." - Frank Zappa
Now you could say rock is not dead , it just smells horrible !
I use to like Frank - but he's rotten now. . . . .
@@BernieHollandMusic be nice, Frank always tried to be entertaining/humorous without concern for collateral damage. I doubt a lot of times he spoke he thought much about what he said before he said it
He's right of course. Very wise words from the legend.
Each musical style has their on characteristics and vocabulary. I'm a rock player who is has started to slowly get into jazz. It's a great journey.
No offense taken. I love them both. I love Bill's playing.
you can say whatever u want about jazz vs rock but the reality is that many rock musicians took jazz influence. nowadays, there’s hardly anything left of either of these two genres, and rock musicians are the ones saying that pop stars and rappers couldn’t play rock if they tried. it’s true, too. anyone arguing between genres back then would’ve had a hard time seeing all this corporate music coming and if they did, they’d say wow we were really all in the same boat
Interesting how they had an understanding of traditional African music and Jazz's roots in it.
Africa didn't have a goddam thing to do with jazz. The superficial attempt to connect Americans with Africans is a sign of extreme ignorance. Jazz was born from the Marching Band, which was British and German. It then evolved in a series of genius leaps from Big Band to Be Bop and then Modal. The snare drum has nothing in common with any other drum in the world, especially not African drums, not even the Senegalese Sabar drums which are played with a stick. African rhythms are almost universally 3/4 or 6/8, with no variation from the main rhythm except for the soloist. As you know, all American music is 4/4, coming from its Marching Band origins. Jazz drumming, especially the likes of Max Roach and Elvin Jones, is a completely different rhythmic universe from African drums, which are much more structured and orderly. Great grooves, sure. But a totally different, unrelated structure. Jazz, like the men and the nation that created it, are One of One, no precedent, no parallel. Africa died on these shores a long time ago. And yes I'm what you call "black" American.
@@cavaleer lol
Owned
Of course they did. It’s fairly common knowledge, and not at all surprising that jazz musicians- certainly of this caliber- knew about it
@@cavaleerWould you not agree as well that some of the precedents for Jazz were set by the romantic composers experimenting with harmony?
For a fantastic pop/jazz treat, the Bronx child prodigy and genius Laura Nyro's revolutionary pop LP 'Eli and the Thirteenth Confession' (1968) is as technically complex as pop ever got, and is littered with great jazz players like Zoot Sims, Joe Farrell, Artie Schroeck, Bernie Glow, etc, etc. The album is jazz progressions, hybrid chords, polyrhythms, counterpoint, wide intervals and lots of key, tempo, rhythm changes. Nyro is Rock Hall of Fame, Songwriters Hall of Fame. Nyro's LP is one of the most influential songwriting records of the last 50 years. Miles Davis, Leonard Bernstein, and Stephen Sondheim were all Nyro fans. Miles and Nyro actually did some shows together.
Lupco Kotevski I so glad you mentioned her it was chris Connor who suggested I hear her. S
There are exceptions like the great Nyro and also Van Morrison jazz-infused albums. Good post you did there...Evans understood...all music is a real wonder
"Rock" back then was very different to rock in following decades. Prog, fusion and psychedelic rock were later attempts to play with great power a music that was challenging and interesting. Often rock musicians started out wanting excitement, fame, money or sex when they are young, but as they mature the fascination of music draws them.
yes and most prog rock does not hold up... because rock is about FEEL and directness - tapping into a primal spirit. Rock me to my "soul" - there's a reason for that. Its not about how hard something is... its about how it speaks.
xxHouseInMotionxx wrong
Noah Yeah, you’re right, there’s no bombast or indulgence in progressive rock. I stand corrected in my subjective interpretation of it.
@@xxHouseInMotionxx this is such a tired and frankly stupid argument. Progressive rock isn't a distinct sound but an ethos. Knowledge of theory is entirely orthogonal to being able to make a personal statement in music. And it is hardly the case that prog rock is confined to one era. This is dad rock bullshit, being afraid of anything that isn't played on 'classic' rock radio and hiding behind bullshit about 'feeling'.
Natesh Mayuranathan no one said anything about technicality baring a personal statement. A Love Supreme? My Favorite Things? Also the original poster said rock “back then” so panties got bunched because prog rock = Tarkus? I know there are contemporary prog bands. Still 10 time signatures in 2 minutes is not exactly known for emotional expression. There’s a scene in Spinal Tap where they play a free form jazz exploration. Maybe you should watch it. The point is - let me throw this at you orthoginally - theory and technique are not prerequisites for value judgments about art. That would be rather a myopic viewpoint right smartyparts? Here’s what I’m saying... and let me back up. I shouldn’t have slammed prog. I’m saying that musical forms with a claim to theory and technique have an easy trap to fall into with virtuosity since the ability to intellectualize and overplay is much easier. Miles Davis understood as he evolved that less is more. It therefore does not mean that his earlier bebop work is trash. Can we live in a world where Liszt and Lamont Young both get it right?
For me my first genre of love was also Rock'n'Roll or rather AC/DC. They just have that cool feel. As I was getting a more experienced player, and more passionate about music I wanted to explore another genre. Between classical and jazz I chose the latter one. At first I didn't really understand it. However through the more bluesy jazz pieces like C-Jam Blues or That Gal Looks Good and through simpler jazz and lofi streams here on youtube, I was able to make a connection to jazz. The bluesy stuff made my feet move almost like AC/DC (since they're also playing lots of blues^^) and lofi and rainy jazz time was really relaxing. Also I found good'ol Django Rheinhardt, whose music for me also has a good drive. That way I got closer and more acommodated to jazz sounds. Then I wanted to really explore jazz and learn to play it. With the use of a school assignment I got all the theory done and created a little jazz piece myself. Furthermore I was able to discover and listen to much more jazz. At that point I was finally able to really enjoy and understand more complicated jazz.
After that school assignment, for which I had to spend a lot of time researching stuff and getting bass, drums, guitar and piano on there in a fashionable manner (All instruments by me....alone...), I was finally really able to start practicing (that was from 11th march 2019). Since then I learned a damn lot, on guitar (main instrument) and piano and I am still improving every day :)
So in all this time I got to discover many great songs and artists like Bill (obviously), Duke, Coltrane, Fitzgerald, Pass, Davis, Billy Bauer (You need to check im out!), Dave Cliff and many more.
I absolutely love to listen to all of these, and the feeling they give, though I also find that Rock'n'Roll is still kinda really my "home base".
Jazz conveys more complex, colorful and distinctive feelings whereas Rock'n'Roll just has that simplicity and directness, which comes directly in to your face.
Both Genres are great. Both each have their own great many feelings, which they convey. Just because Rock is simpler in it's theory doesn't mean it's bad, as Bill states in this video. It even has (a sort of) improvisation, which is represented by the solo of a song, such as in Highway to Hell, Rock in Peace, Runnin Wild, Soul Stripper etc.
All in All, for me both are equally excellent and unique and each with it's great variety in itself.
Rock On and Swing It!
Agreed, but I think most of musicians start (and often continue) with rock. I only started to appreciate jazz past 25. I love rock, always did, always will, I grew up with rock and it introduced me to so many other genres and sub genres, from death metal to rockabilly,. Rock made me buy my first bass, rockabilly my first double bass. But I must admit, never a rock piece made me feel, think, resonate and love as much as Waltz for Debby did(which Bill composed). Never a rock bass player gave me what LaFaro gave me. And yes, I think Bill is unequivocally right when he speaks about rock not being subtle. Don't get me wrong, there are subtleties in rock, but it's not the intention of the genre. It explains perfectly why rock is still popular today, and jazz is often seen as bullshit or snob music. I always find the comparison to mathematics very indicative. Most people don't like math because it requires time, thinking and practice to appreciate the subtleties of it, but once you're there, it is truly beautiful. Same goes with jazz (or music in general). I don't respect less rock musicians after hearing Bill. They gave what the people of their time wanted. Rock gave the possibility to so many people to play music. Some musicians wanted to push it further, jazz gave them that possibility (which is not exclusive to jazz), and that is fine. Not everybody digs Bill Evans, and that is fine as well!
I have very little to add here because the previous comments were THAT insightful and intelligent.
It says a lot about Bill Evans and his listeners.
Yes, jazz is far more complex than pop, folk, country, rock, blues, etc. But that doesn't mean a jazz player can automatically play in any of those simpler genres and sound authentic if he hasn't spent a lot of time absorbing the musical language of that genre.
Nice one Bob Aldo!
Eh
Exactly.
And classical is more complex than jazz and both classical and jazz are a dying breed. Pretentious people are killing these genres by trying to pretend that one is more "art" than popular music and not even carrying about reaching out to an audience.
BlackPrince They are dying because people are becoming stupid mindless drones workimg for their bosses with no time to go deeper in all the things that make life worth living...
No time for jazz and classical
Thanks for posting this, I hadn't heard it before. Seems like Bill is laying it out there without any hate toward rock musicians. He was very fair in handling the interviewer's suggested bias towards jazz. Every musician has their own personal motivation for playing and deciding what to play and how to play. That's what makes music so great. The only thing that might fly in the face of this argument is that he say's if musicians are doing it for commercial gain, it's cool, as long as they admit it. Not sure how many commercial musicians know, or would admit, they are in it strictly for the money. Most of us agree on dividing an octave into 12 steps. It's always amazing to me how many disparate types of music com out of this system.
A good musician can play any style.
Well said!
@mars laredo No you wouldn't. You'd be hard pressed to find a great musician who DID play in any style.
@mars laredo Claude Bolling.
@mars laredo True.
False. A good musician sticks to playing only the styles he/she can play with true musical sincerity. Some are more versatile than others. But John Bonham couldn't swing. Buddy Rich couldn't rock to save his life. SRV tried one jazz tune on a record and it was fucking terrible. Yet, unquestionably, these musicians were some of the very best we've ever heard. So you should do away with that prejudice. A good musician plays with sincerity and heart. Neil Young can't play for shit, can't sing for shit, but when you hear him play his music, it's a moving experience, because it's sincere and has heart. That's a good musician.
Bill is 90% right. The members of the Wrecking Crew studio musicians that played on so many of the famous and popular rock and pop songs of the sixties and seventies were largely jazz musicians. Hal Blaine was a jazz drummer who instinctively knew how to play rock 'n roll. But I have worked with many fine jazz drummers that don't have a clue how to approach rock music and play it like a jazz drummer; never playing the same bar two times in a row. The basis of rock is rudimentary. It means establishing and maintaining the groove. It involves constant repetition. Some think that's a bad thing. I think that's what rock 'n roll is about and I think it's possible to appreciate both kinds of music for their own attributes.
Love Bill always will :-)
This old legendary figure already gave our answer to the attitude about now days music , 'rock' stand for pop today, 'jazz' stand for gold but not old
I wish someone would transcribe this conversation. It would make it easy for me to understand.
I'll do it, expect a message here, not too soon unfortunatly
Ha ha you got to feel the beat, man, feel the pulse. :)
[Bill]: You know, the thing that happens with, like...ask a rock musician to play jazz and he can't do it; ask a jazz musician to play rock and he could probably do it in 10 minutes. You know? The reason is that rock is a very direct and elementary form of what, sort of, is happening, and it's very measured. You know, it's an 8 to the bar thing, you know. It's very much on the beat, and a very measured thing. It's not that difficult to feel and to do, I don't think, for a musician that can handle it. And what I always do is learn to feel it and start to handle it. But the jazz thing, I think...my opinion is that it's a little more liquid, and maybe a little more sophisticated, craft-wise and even feeling-wise. You know?
A drummer was telling me that play some rock drums like that, he was waiting all these years to hear if somebody ask him, "What is that 'ding di-ga-ding di-ga-ding'?" He says it finally happened. The rock drummer asked to me. He says, "You know, because they're always playing the measured beat. And you know, it's a very subtle thing to play jazz-time, and they could swing and have a pulse. Rock, if anything, is not subtle. This we, I think, we can all admit.
[Interviewer]: Right
[Bill]: Yeah, it's very direct, and, nothing wrong with being direct, but I don't like to go around corners, even when you're subtle. But uh...that's...I don't know, that's about the only thoughts I guess I have on that, you know?
[Interviewer]: To me, one of the things that happens...and it happens in African music, and it happens in a funny kind of polyrhythmic way...when a measured beat, as you say, becomes an unmeasured beat...if you're...
[Bill]: Yeah. Yeah. Super-imposed. It's a super-imposed thing.
[Interviewer]: ...in your music. It's not that indigenous to jazz. It doesn't need to be. But in the very best jazz. And the mind seems to begin to wander. The mind seems to be able to get free of where the anchored note is. There's polyrhythms like, the...and the 5th beat are coming in, and now it's in 5 and now it's back to...
[Bill]: Whatever, yeah. I agree.
[Interviewer]: Have you theorized about that?
[Bill]: Well, to the extent that I...I used to say, I'm really glad about rock for one reason: that is, it taught the kids where the beat is. You know? It really did, and I would say that the rock generation knows much more where the beat is than for a say, per 100,000 population did. When I was, like, a teenager. You know, the kids used to get out there on the dancefloor and they didn't know where the beat was. They just shuffle around. Very few musicians knew it. That, I feel, that rock has done well.
Now that they know where the beat is, the thing is to feel it, and do something a little less obvious with it. That's what I would think. You know, and that's perhaps one reason why a lot of young kids are coming into jazz, because they can feel the beat. And now they realize that what they hear is not just a string of abstract, unrelated rhythmical things or whatever...that there's a pulse underlying the whole thing, and it doesn't have to be constantly pounding.
But I'm beginning to sound like I have a gripe, and maybe somewhere deep inside me, I did resent a little bit the fact that...that terrific phenomenon of rock in the '60s pushed jazz into a corner. Because I don't wanna be controversial, I don't wanna get into controversies, I really don't. It doesn't matter to me. I'm where I'm at. They're where they're at. Let's all be happy. You know?
And all I ever say about anybody is: whatever you do, you got to live with it. You know? If you're in it for a buck, then fine as long as you know it. If you're in it for soul-food, food for your soul or spirit, that's great too. Or both. Whatever. Whatever it is, you have to live with it, and I'm happy to live with what I'm doing, and somebody else probably hates it. So that's all I can say, really.
[Interviewer]: Is that what separates jazz from rock finally...other than musical considerations...that jazz is "for the music", and rock is more "money and music"?
[Bill]: I really don't know. I guess you'd have to do a survey of rock musicians and ask them what their motivations are, if you could get honest answers. I think a lot of them would admit they want fame, popularity, girls, whatever, you know. And I'm sure those things all play some part in any person who's a professional...professionally ambitious in any field of music. But where those things line up numerically, as far as priorities, might vary a little bit.
I omitted a lot of the parts where he says "umm" and "you-know", just to make it easier to read. Also, it was hard to understand the interviewer when they were talking at the same time, especially because the microphone was closer to Bill for the recording.
some kid wow - you actually did this
i have an immense amount of respect for bill evans. he was an astonishingly innovative musician, composer and improviser. a pivotal figure in the evolution of american music. and, in spite of his accomplishment and talents, he is no more of an expert on rock music than my grandmother. and pay close attention to what he says, "...somewhere deep inside me i did resent a little bit that terrific phenomenon of rock in the 60s pushed jazz into a corner..." that's the reveal. i've played with many jazz musicians and improvisers. in reality, most jazz musicians cannot play rock music convincingly (and they know it) and it is nowhere near as easy or automatic as bill evans would like to think. just ask miles who did try to play rock music. i began playing music in chicago as a blues musician. and i heard the same kind of condescension about blues from both jazz and rock players. but none of them can play authentic blues to save their lives. the same is also true of most jazz players. and vice versa rock guys trying to play jazz. if and when you attempt to use whatever music you love to denigrate another kind of music, you only reveal how insecure you are about yourself. both jim hall and bob brookmeyer who played with bill evans spoke about times when bill could not go onstage because he was so insecure about his playing. even the greatest musician is still just a human being and subject to all the frailties, foibles and fragility as other humans. including bill evans. would this be a good time to remind people that bill evans was a junkie for most of his life and it actually killed him. so i think you might want to stop making him into a deity.
He's surprisingly respectful, and actually has something to say instead of being the guy who doesn't like new music.
My only issue it's good tendency to say "yeah" every 0.3 seconds when the other guy's speaking 😂
At least if he has a mic as well, it would be reasonable
I agree mostly with what he says but 70s rock (and from then on) can be really delicate and full of subtleties. Same with heavier music, people just like to generalise since either they don't know enough about a style of music or they've heard the more famous, mainstream pieces and make assumptions based on that.
Loved his point on how rock teaches where the beat is.
Thanks for this. 👌🏻
Does anybody know when this was recorded? Evans' career started in the '50s, and he lived until 1980. The rock music that he's referring to could be anywhere from pre-Beatles to post-Zappa. I heard him refer to the "60s" in the past; maybe this was in the '70s? I wonder how deeply he knew the rock catalog, and what he might have thought of King Crimson, ELP, or the Hendrix Experience.
I would love to hear what Bill would have said about hip-hop and disco.
Disco has better musicians than hip hop, that fir sure. Just singing disco has some good vocals, its very groovy, hipmhop os shit
@@sega62s I'd do more homework on hip-hop if I were you .. J Dilla, Pete Rock, Flying Lotus, DJ Shadow's "Endtroducing", Karriem Riggins, Robert Glasper Experiment..I'll even go as far as to say Boards of Canada and Aphex Twin!
Anyways, people like Nile Rogers and James Mtume are great examples of disco musicianship at its finest.
Leggy Green Crime i guess, you are right.
I’m so sick of these fucking rock fans ragging in hip hop. You aren’t cool anymore if you don’t get the new music.
@@Howardlandscapingllc Pretty easy to say hip hop is sophisticated if you include artists who don't make hip hop. IDM was influenced by Jungle, not hip hop. If you include anything beat with constant syncopation, then sure.
spot on! Billy completely nailed it talking about such a controversial subject in a brilliant, straightforward and elegant way. a true master speaking.
what a delightful mind! love him even more now 😊 👏 👏 👏 ❤️ ❤️ ❤️
I think the Grateful Dead give a unique model within the rock genre of a band that is focused on the subtle interplay of musicians and trying to create music in the moment. They are certainly not on the same level of sophistication harmonically as someone like Bill Evans, but they have their own form of interplay that is conversational in the same way jazz is, but with the added dynamic and sonic dimensions.
It's a given that jazz is generally more difficult to play than rock (or country or R&B or etc.). Most "classical" music poses its own challenges and is often devilishly difficult to play. I love Bill Evans, so no bones to pick here. But the idea that one who prefers jazz (or any other genre) to a a more common music is ignorant or snobbish or both. I know many people, myself included, who LOVE great jazz (Duke, Parker, Miles, Monk, Coltrane, Mingus, and so on) but also love great rock (Beatles, Stones, Hendrix, Clash, Radiohead, and so on) with equal fervor. And we also love Bach, Bartok, Hank Williams, The Stanley Brothers, Stevie Wonder, Pubic Enemy, and so on as well. What I prefer to hear depends on something deep in my mind that I can't really access. I love it that Charlie Parker admired a lot of country music for what it was, that Miles loved Ravel, that Stravinsky and Shostakovitch loved jazz, that Big Boi loves Kate Bush, and, well you get the point. Miles said that Kind of Blue was his version of an African ballet but that it didn't come out that way. But he ended up with a record for the ages (but isn't necessarily MY favorite Miles). These cross connections are precisely where innovation comes in, or one way. A bass player who listens to nothing but, say, Jaco Pastorius, is going to find his or her limits pretty soon. A bass player will learn a lot by listening to De Machaut or Hawaiian guitar music. I used to proclaim my hatred for Taylor Swift, but, in reality, she ain't that bad, even if I'm not her audience. Well enough rambling.
I agree with him in that, once you have the basics, you naturally want to go further and can’t understand why most people won’t.
Can’t understand that most adults listen to the same music they did when they where teens AND won’t add anything merely sophisticated or challenging in their track lists in their whole lives.
Would they do that with books, movies, art in general, conversations etc? Do we?
Some people just doesn't understand that and maybe don't want to understand
Songs are like photo albums that bring back memories and feelings from the past, like an anchor of the personal and collective identity, much like the social function of an anthem. When you stop assimilating new experiences in your life you stop listening to new music, and visa versa, when they stop making good music it's harder to assimilate new experiences.
You look at this like there's an objective hierarchy. There isn't. Jazz is what it is, and some find it enjoyable whilst others don't. You may find it sophisticated and challenging. Another may find it tedious and repetative and rambling. So What.
M.Q. Macabre That sounds to me like you are ignoring the fact that humans start to learn as soon as they are born are we only stop when we die.
We usually don’t appreciate things when we are 5 the same way as when we are 10, and then not the same as when we are 15 etc etc
I’m talking about change, learning, evolution... not hierarchy, I may not express myself well enough.
I agree with him started as a rock guitarist and now I'm in jazz . rock is very elementary but jazz is sophisticated and elementary part is very important to master for me i find satisfaction in jazz now
I wonder, what rock and roll are we talking about here? Technically, rock and roll was born in the 50's and most of the songs were played by session musicians with a strong background in jazz. It frequently had sophisticated chord voicings, a deep swing, and liberal use of country and blues elements, two musical forms also informed by jazz.
60's rock saw an influx of more 'garage' level bands and simpler compositions, but still, a great many acts had musicians with jazz training, and if you watch old videos of those acts you'll see drummers using traditional grip and guitarists with their instruments strapped high and playing with studied technique. They just had a different agenda for their skills.
In any case, what is NOT easy to do regardless of genre is to write music which captures the imagination of a generation, and what is even harder still is to write music which inspires future generations. In that light, the number of artists who make the grade is relatively low, jazz rock or otherwise. And I'm grateful for all of them.
That was in the States, where early Rockers came from Jazz & Blues background mainly. In England, however, many of them who have been influenced by Blues, had the drive for fame, glory and girls first rather than mastering instruments. They learned guitar playing by two fingers and catchy riffs and made to the studios.
Rock goes back to the 30s and Boogie Woogie piano really. Then race music of the 40s.
I wish the interviewer ask him about Bands like Blood,Sweat and Tears who got kids like me just going into my teenage years listening to Jazz and Chicago although they were mainly Rock.They did add the Jazz element to their Music.
So true, Jazz is way harder than rock, Bill Evans is definitely an absolute master! Rest In Peace with Chet Baker and Louis Armstrong
I've listened to Bill Evans for years but this is the first time I've heard him speak. I prefer to think of his piano playing as his real voice.
Keep in mind that Bill Evans died in 1980... I'm not sure when this was recorded but real shreddy prog had only been around a few years when he died... Its likely he's talking about bands like Led Zeppelin, Who, Beatles etc...
He is actually right especially if you take the big bands from his era, they lacked understanding of music. John Jones was the only Zeppelin with musical background because he played jazz and arranged orchestras before his Zeppelin days, which sometimes frustrated him because he had to glue the band together to stay on rhythm almost always. I believe no one of the Beatles could read a music sheet, and that is why they had George Martin in studio almost aways for all their string arrangement, and list goes on.
Rock is imperfect, sloppy, and messy and that what makes it unique. The problem with modern rock is they try to make it so perfect that doesn't sound like Rock anymore.
A great point. He was probably describing "rock" at a very early stage in the genre's long evolution.
Beatles are thé summum
he’s right! I’m a jazz musician, but I play in Rock groups all the time. I fly by the seat of my pants in those gigs, but jazz is something i have to think about.
I would like to hear you play a Zeppelin song. I bet it sucks (no more offence intended than you and Bill give here).
@@naysayer1238 led zeppelin is one of my favorite bands. i can play a ton of their tunes
Fascinating to listen to this. Does anyone know where I can find the full interview?
On point on every point. Great interview! What a guy!
He talks cool and plays fantastic and he is right - that's why Miles and Mahavishnu Orch. & Zappa invented jazz- rock - but still the jazz sensibility is missed - great artist !
He’s absolutely right, generally speaking... But it would be interesting to know when exactly this interview happened and what examples of rock he had in mind. 50s / early 60s rock’n’roll was indeed quite primitive, to be honest. Even the early Beatles were pretty simple. But rock also evolved, absorbed some harmonic influences from jazz and became more sophisticated. I wonder what Bill Evans would think about Sting or Steely Dan.