suba3333
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2006
- Posts
- 178
- Likes
- 11
I hear this term quite often, especially in a Jazz setting. I guess it means that the band gels well together as one coherent unit or am I wrong? Cheers.
Originally Posted by Riordan /img/forum/go_quote.gif i wonder: is there any instance where NOT being tight as a band was/is seen as positive? i'm thinking of two soloists pulling into completely different directions, struggling against each other and splitting the rhythm section. or a soloist pushing himself away from the band struggling to keep up or just minding their own business... i guess there is (that concept seems very jazz-y to me), and in avantgarde even more so - but could you name some that are considered (at least by some) as exemplary? i'm looking more for musical deconstructivism than outright chaos for the sake of making a point. doesn't have to be jazz either, the avantgarde metal band unexpect would go into the direction i'm talking about. i'm not looking for recommendations, mind you - that question about 'tightness' has just piqued my interest... |
Originally Posted by apatN /img/forum/go_quote.gif Tight could also have a different meaning. I spoke to a reviewer and he said that reviewers often say a band is tight when it's nothing special (to them), but they played nice anyway. |
Originally Posted by Jubei /img/forum/go_quote.gif In the reviewer's case, I think he is using "tight" as opposed to "loose", thus the band is probably sounding a bit too rehearsed and not groovy. In some genres like jazz or blues, playing too "tight" is I supposed not good. I would generally say a band is tight if the band members play off each other intuitively. In fact, I think for soloists to go in different directions yet have the music somewhat coherent, the band has to be real tight! |