On 6/13/2026 4:30 AM, jason clark wrote:
> Jazz is a more sophisticated music, more purely reliant on the notes, not the words, or theater.
Interesting comparison. Most of my gigs are jazz but I do get a few rock gigs (fun to play electric bass now and then) and I think about the differences. For one thing, there is very little improvisation in rock; most of the time the bass must play a very specific bass line; no deviation permitted. Rock demands a kind of discipline that -- especially in tribute bands -- can feel like a straitjacket. OTOH, if you get the feel right, it can feel really good.
The "feels" of the rock tunes are also much more pronounced and very different from one tune to another, whereas in jazz the textures are mostly the same, just with different changes (and lyrics, of course). The emotions expressed in rock are more raw -- sometimes frankly sexual -- whereas in jazz we are mostly only hinting and titillating. Rock doesn't waste time on moon in june. In both, the topics are almost entirely the courting stage of life.
If I had to choose, it would be (no surprise) jazz, because it can be a fun mental exercise, enabling experimentation with different ways to propel and decorate sets of changes that are like frameworks to erect. Bass is especially fun because it supports the whole structure and the others all rely upon it -- often unknowingly, especially singers and horn players who depend on me to know where they are.
Jay, you have always approached jazz -- indeed, all music -- in a very cerebral, analytical way. For me, the gonads get involved. You dig guys like Tristano who tinker with the rules. For me it's more like the Beatles who internalized Bach and went outside only rarely -- gingerly and self-consciously.
But you can visit my music site anyway!
-- Dan Keller, 2026