"Nancy Wilson with Cannonball" is an absolute gem. I am biased since she is probably my favorite female vocalist (non-classical) and Cannonball is (was) one of my very favorite alto players. Her repertoire is unusual for a jazz singer since it covers many "torch" songs and songs from the musical-theater and cabaret genres; but, it's so great to hear that material sung with a jazz singer's sensibility and sophistication instead of the "over the top" approach of many cabaret singers. While I disagree with Rok's lack of enthusiasm for the record, I get where he is coming from. As he points out that was probably Cannonball's best band and it's in top form. Nat was probably one of Jazz's most inconsistent players and he is killing on this record. Rok, give it another listen :-) This clip of Nancy Wilson kills me every time. As far as I am concerned, it doesn't get much better than this for sheer class and emotion by a singer; not to mention flawless vocal skill. And if I write what this clip does to the male in me, this post would probably be deleted by the Agon censors. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QBmrDS2Zhaw |
Rok, I can't think of a time that I heard something by Sonny Rollins that I didn't like. "+3" is one of his best. Sonny is one of the greatest and most influential of the modern tenor players. Miles considered him to be the greatest tenor player ever (!!!). He has a very distinctive style and an extraordinarily powerful musical persona; particularly when it comes to rhythmic feel. His sense of rhythm and projection of it is so powerful that, unlike most players who play with or to the rhythm section's groove, the rhythm section often seems to be playing to HIS groove; he is a very commanding musical force. Of special note on this record is the unusual (for him) use of fast vibrato on the ballads like "They Say Its Wonderful". You are absolutely correct in your observation that he sounds like he knew what he was going to play ahead of time. While I doubt that is the case (strictly speaking), I think what you sense is his incredible sense of confidence while still being spontaneous. While Cranshaw is a great player and, as you said, if Sonny wants electric bass who are we to argue, I am with you about electric bass in jazz in general; have never liked it. But, let's hear (read) the reasons why from the horse's mouth (so to speak): http://jazztimes.com/articles/20314-bob-cranshaw-shop-talk |
Orpheus10, you could not be more correct; Lew Tabackin is most certainly an underrated player. Lew has been one of the heroes of the NY scene for a long time and I know him personally, having recently been part of a project that recreated Henry Mancini's scores for "Peter Gunn" on which Lew was the featured soloist. A Harmonia Mundi CD release of the project is scheduled for early 2014. http://www.jazzpromoservices.com/jazz-news/harmonie-ensemble-new-york-steve-richman-conductor-with-lew-tabackin-lew-soloff-the-music-from-peter-gunn-weds-june-1-2011-at-100-p-m-st-peter’s-church/Lew is a beautiful and exuberant tenor player with a notable Sonny Rollins influence. Heard live one immediately notices his HUGE sound and "take no prisoners" approach. He is a classically trained flutist and is widely recognized as one of the very best, certainly the best living, flute "doublers". You will notice that his style on flute has a subtle Eastern influence; probably the result of having been the featured soloist and co-leader in his wife Toshiko's big band, for which she wrote material some of which has an unabashed Eastern (Japanese) flavor. Some of my favorite playing by Lew is on Freddie Hubbard's recording "Sweet Return"; highly recommended, and as Rok says "gotta get it". |
O-10, thanks for the Shadowfax link. I like it; it's not the kind of thing that I would go out of my way to listen to, but I like it. I am not a big fan of music with that "New Age/World Music" vibe; just a personal preference. It's a pretty melody and the playing is good; but..... the tune needs a good "bridge" to break up the sense of too much repetition. I can imagine, after the melody is repeated once, a variation on the melody in a double-time feel. Notice how the drums and bass play in a half-time feel throughout while the keyboards suggest a double-time feel. It would have been very effective if after the first repetition of the melody, all the instruments would break into a double-time feel playing the variation and then return to the original feel and melody to the end. The tune made me think of this other tune which, for me, pushes similar buttons, but is "kicked up quite a few notches": http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sF9kW-8NPqs&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DsF9kW-8NPqs |
The challenge for singers when they scat is that, no matter what, they will be judged according to the standard set by the great instrumentalists; those are VERY big shoes to fill. Only a handful of singers, Ella being at the top of the heap, even approach the fluency of good instrumental improvisers in the harmonic language of jazz. They usually simply gloss over the complexity of the harmonic changes of a tune. Among instrumentalists speaking about other instrumentalists, that limited command of the harmony is usually referred to as "bullshitting". A smart singer keeps scatting to a minimum.
Re "Take Five":
Tito's version is great; very exciting. Like Rok says "a really right Latin Jazz band is hard to beat". Thanks for the link. But, and not meaning to, in the least, take away from the enthusiasm that my esteemed fellow aficionados have for this cover of this classic tune, for me there is no way Tito's version can supplant the original as the definitive version. Most importantly, they are almost not even the same tune. The melody is the same; almost. What makes Desmond's (he wrote it) "Take Five" unique and ground breaking, particularly for the era when it was written, is that it was written in odd-meter; in five, of course. I don't kow if anyone noticed, but Tito's version is IN FOUR !!!! It should more correctly be titled "Take Four". Still, a great and exciting cover. |
****I knew something was wrong with him****
You crack me up; that was very funny. I am sure you have heard the story about Desmond being asked how he got that sound and he replied that he "tried to sound like a dry martini". Gotta love it.
Re Rahsaan:
Yup, his nose; that was his "nose flute". Come to think of it, Desmond and Kirk were probably as diametrically opposed as two players of the same instrument can be. Desmond: statetly, meticulous and dignified in his approach to jazz; Rahsaan: wild, raw, umpredictable and with a touch of humor. Both great, and for that, a testament to the greatness of the art form.
Anyway, the instrument that he is playing is the "mansello" (he named it). His mansello was a modified "saxello" which was a straight alto; a rare but production horn by the Conn Co. You will notice that it sounds kinda like an alto and in the same range as the alto. Imagine taking an alto and straightening it out so it no longer has the curved bell. Rahsaan, as you obviously know he would sometimes do, modified it by attaching that extra large bell on it.
One of the things that makes his playing on that clip so remarkable is that all those rare and unusual saxophones that were manufactured in the 20's-40's were very aukward in their key mechanisms and usually terribly out of tune. Not many were manufactured so they were not perfected nor refined like modern horns. Truth is that the modern horns really helped facilitate, to a degree, the great technical playing strides made after the "swing era". The way that Rahsaan gets around on that bizarre horn, and with pretty good intonation, is simply amazing. A little bit like a sprinter winning the 100 yard dash wearing army boots. |
"Desmond Blue". Beautiful does not do it justice. One of my very favorite records. Interesting that this clip should follow the "Last Exit" clip. I can't think of two more different approaches to "jazz"; and, yes, I think the Last Exit performance can probably be, fairly, be called jazz by virtue of the fact that it is about 95% improvised. In answer to Rock's questions: no this music was not written down. What were they thinking about? As little as possible; that's the point, and the goal. It's visceral, high-energy, let it all hang out, however the moment moves you improvisation with the most sparse musical outline established ahead of time: short drum intro, 24 bars of "free" ensemble improvisation, followed by a series of improvised solos and more ensemble playing all in the same minor tonality with no harmonic changes. High energy, exciting (to some) and basically a jam. Music like this often walks a fine line between art and bullshit; the individual listener decides. If anyone is interested the instrument that Brotsmann plays besides tenor saxophone is the Tarogato, a Hungarian folk instrument which even though is referred to as a "tenor clarinet" in the credits is really more like a wooden soprano saxophone.
O-10's description of Desmond Blue (and his personal story) is perfect; jazz that is about contemplation instead of visceral reaction. There is an unbelievable amount of subtlety and introspection in this kind of jazz, and Desmond and Hall were two of the masters. There is constant dialogue between the players and with the orchestration. Desmond was a master of thematic development; all done in the simplest of ways. Listen to how he takes a simple melodic fragment and develops and transposes it to fit the changing harmony; all in the most logical way possible and always harkening back to the melody of the tune and using the least amount of notes possible. One particularly beautiful moment happens at 2:16. While Desmond improvises there is a simple little melodic statement by the winds in the orchestration, Desmond immediately reacts and "answers" it with a statement of his own having the same shape as that in the orchestration, and incorporates it into his improvisation in the most perfect way. This is really great stuff. Thanks for the link. |
I don't think that Jack Teagarden's relevance in the history of jazz should be considered simply hype. It is true that the titles "King" of this or that were overblown titles, and partially the unfortunate result of the terrible social biases and injustices that were prevalent at the time. Rok is, sadly, correct that it is unlikely that a black jazz player at the time would have been designated "King" of anything by the majority white ($$$) audiences. Nonetheless, it is also true that Benny was responsible for exposing vast audiences to "Swing"; hence the title "King of Swing". Having said that, Teagarden is correctly credited for bringing the trombone to the modern jazz era. He was the transitional link from the traditional supporting role of the trombone in dixieland to the more prominent role as solo instrument in "Swing". The guy could really play and demonstrated a facility on the instrument that must have been considered amazing at the time. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4MlFCDcP2zMBottom line for me: Louis Armstrong chose him to play in his band. I doubt that Louis succumbed to hype. Interesting that Teagarden and Benny should be mentioned: Teagarden was a white player in a black band, and Benny Goodman's band was one (maybe first?) racially integrated band with the addition of Lionel Hampton, Charlie Christian and others. |
"...You can't play anything on the horn that Louis hasn't already played...even modern."
-- Miles Davis
Maybe a little bit of an exaggeration; but, considering the source, it's quite a compliment. |
One of the most beautiful yet sad and haunting jazz compositions that I have ever heard. This was written by Billy Strayhorn for Ellington's band and was his last composition. He was dying from cancer and finished it while in the hospital. Johnny Hodges is simply incredible on this. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ckls62nZHw |
Re Getz and Blood Count: I love the way Getz plays that tune; I can't think of anything that Getz did that I didn't like.
****As much as I love Johnny Hodges, it's Getz who embodies the song****
Interesting choice of words about a song written by a man who is about to leave his body. I agree that Getz's versions are great and there is no point debating who plays the song better. However, to my way of thinking, "Blood Count" is about the composition, orchestration and all, and not just the "song". It was the last statement by a brilliant composer/orchestrator intended to be played by a group of musicians that he knew exactly how each would sound on each individual part; they were his musical palette. No piano/bass/drums rhythm section can capture the dark and funereal (literally) sonorities of Ellington's brass and reeds; his chord voicings are amazing. The orchestration as a whole is a dialogue between the soloist (Hodges) and the band. Great stuff. |
Nice stuff from Bags and Hutcherson. Swinging classic jazz from two masters. Thanks for the clips.
O-10 is exactly right when he says: "Bags is saying more with fewer words". Hutcherson plays great, but his playing is much more notey and he likes to be flashier than Bags. There are certain subtle "statements" that players make for each other and for the audience that don't always have anything to do with the music in the usual sense, but speak volumes about that player's attitude and sense of self. For instance, notice how on "Just Friends" Hutcherson plays the first solo and takes 5 (!) choruses; that is a lot of blowing by any standard. Bags follows and has the confidence to, instead of saying: "Oh yea, I'm gonna take six", he says : "I don't need five choruses, I can can say it in two"; and he does. Love it!
I also agree about each player's tone; I prefer Bags' tone. A large (not all) part of the reason for the difference is the equipment they use. Both instruments do have a pedal (they all do). Since Hutcherson's is, overall, more streamlined, the pedal is harder to see as opposed to the pedal on Bags' vibes which is larger and more "decorative". Bags' instrument also has the large wooden side panels which tend to give the sound a fuller quality, as well as the arched resonator tubes which is really just a cosmetic difference to give the instrument that contoured appearance in the front. If you look closely at the mallets that they each play, you will notice that the heads on Hutcherson's mallets are smaller and less "fluffy"; hence harder. That is the main reason for the difference in tone. Bags' mallet heads are larger and softer giving the sound a slightly rounder, fuller and less metallic quality. Both beautiful players. |
|
“It is becoming increasingly difficult to decide where jazz starts or where it stops, where Tin Pan Alley begins and jazz ends, or even where the borderline lies between classical music and jazz. I feel there is no boundary line.” - Duke Ellington
****I had to cringe at the Ellington quote. Can a mere mortal disagree with The Duke?? Some people might take his statement too literal.**** Rok
First of all, I seem to remember a comment by you a while back, something along the lines of "sometimes I think listeners are more purist than the artists themselves". Well, there's some truth to that. Concerning Duke, remember the context (funny how we keep coming back to context). He was a composer and orchestrator who "lived" in and was very close to both genres; he wrote music that did in fact blur the lines between the two. And if I may, a comment I made: "One can never know too much". Look at a picture in a newspaper: the further you step back, the clearer boundary lines appear. The closer you get to the picture, the more you see the dots that make up each image; the more the boundaries get blurred. |
|
****Nothing is being merged****
Of course it is. The depiction of "voodoo music" in a Hollywood film like "Black Orpheus" is no more accurate than the depiction of nightclubs in films. I would go so far as to say that the way nightclubs were depicted is more accurate; that's the nature of the film industry. There are very few places on our planet where indigenous musics still exist unadulterated by modern society to some extent; and if they do, they are certainly not part of the mainstream. If the question is: why is African native music as heard in places like Brazil closer to that of the African slaves (and I say "closer" because I suspect that there a many places in Africa where it is still fairly close to what it was 200 years ago) than in the USA? The answer is obvious: the more a country becomes industrialized, modernized, whatever one wants to call it, the less "pure" any one native art form will remain. Isn't that exactly what has been happening to jazz?
****Especially since that music was retained and survived all of those hundreds of years, every place, except here.****
Really? Besides Africa itself, where? Perhaps, to a degree, in places like Haiti and remote parts of Brazil where the above comments apply; and even in those places the indegenous musics have "merged" with it. And BTW, here in NYC there at still places where one can buy live chickens; and NOT because fresh tastes better. The point is that it has survived to varying degrees everywhere, but in a country like ours it is much more "fringe" than in others. |
O-10, "Idle Moments" has been on my list of "to buy" for literally years ever since a friend played that cut for me. It was of particular interest because it was, as you said, one of Joe Henderson's earliest things on record. Thanks for the reminder. That recording is absolutely incredible with a beautifully relaxed feeling. As you said, all the solos are great, but Joe.....wow! There is a saying among jazz players that "you can't play outside until you know how to play inside". What they mean by that is that a player has to master improvising "inside" the tune's harmony in a traditional (easily recognized by the listener) way before he can leave that harmony for more "adventurous" note choices "outside" those traditional harmonic constraints. This has been an area of considerable controversy. Many so-called "free" or "avant-garde" players have been shown to be nothing more than imposters since "musical political correctness" has been reluctant to call their playing what it is: bullshit. Joe Henderson is a master at leaving the traditional harmony in a beautiful, organized and CONTROLLED way as a way of EXTENDING the harmony, and not simply destroying it in the spirit of being "free". Two moments in his solo that demonstrate this harmonic mastery are 8:35 and 9:45; it's a kind of harmonic spiciness.
If all that wasn't "geeky" enough: Joe Henderson plays with a very distinctive and uniquely warm sound. Part of the reason for this is his choice of mouthpiece. One will notice that tenor saxophone players play either a metal or rubber (plastic) mouthpiece. During the "swing" and early "bop" eras most players played rubber mouthpieces. As players developed more aggressive styles in the "hard-bop" eras and beyond, they sought the louder and brighter sounds that a metal mouthpiece gives the player. Joe Henderson is a notable exception to this trend. Not only did he choose to play a rubber mouthpiece, but it is a mouthpiece normally used by classical saxophonists who require an even more rounded and less edgy sound.
Another interesting thing about this recording is how the tempo relaxes even more from beginning to end. Sometimes this is intentional; it usually isn't and is just something that happens in the performance. In this case things start to relax a lot during Hutcherson's solo. Notice how much slower the tempo is by the time the melody returns at the end (13:12); it's not a subtle difference. |
Rok, my feelings about "free" jazz have not changed for quite some time. I seem to recall a couple of earlier discussions about it. But, to be clear, I don't consider ALL free jazz to be bullshit; quite the contrary. If I am not mistaken, one of those discussions was about Coltrane's "free" period. I would never consider that to be bullshit. My comments were about some players who jumped on the "free" bandwagon without having any mastery of the traditional. Occasionally, a genius comes along whose innate musical vocabulary is so different that he has something to say even without any substantive roots in the traditional vocabulary, so there is real value. Many others...; well, I think I have used up my quota of that word for a while. IMO, of course, and I am sure some more "open minded" consider that opinion to be.... |
Rok,
1) No. Although there are traditional seating arrangements for certain sections, certain instrument sections may be positioned differently according to the particular orchestra's traditions, a particular conductor's wishes, or a particular work's requirements per the composer. Although as concerns a particular work's requirements (usually a modern work) "all bets are off", orchestral seating arrangements that seldom change are:
- 1rst violins: left/front
- woodwinds: center/ front to back with horns usually closer to center behind woodwinds
- brass: right/rear
- percussion across the left to right/ rear
Seating for 2nd violins, violas, celli and basses can vary. In opera orchestras, because of the shallowness of most "pits" seating varies even more.
2) Most members are permanent. "Auxiliary" instruments (bass clarinet, piccolo, harp) in major orchestras, with a few exceptions (saxophone), are also permanent. In orchestras with smaller budgets they are not.
3) Given the amazing level of proficiency in today's orchestras there is little chance of an unusually technically demanding work not being executed to near perfection (technically); and, it certainly would not be acceptable if that were the case. That wasn't always the case with earlier recordings of the modern repertory on which one can sometimes hear the players struggling with difficult passages. However, it is not clear from the "every note heard" comment wether the reviewer refers to the execution of the parts or (more likely) to wether that particular recording or performance includes a passage or section of music that, either because of traditional performance practice, or the composer's designation as "optional".
BTW, was I pulling your leg? :-) |
O-10, thanks for the sentiment; the feeling is mutual. While I completely agree with you that music is subjective (well, more accurately, one's reaction to music is subjective) I don't know on what you base the comment that jazz is more subjective than any other form of music or that a reaction to a particular player's ability that differs from yours means that there is, necessarily, anything but subjectivity at play (pun intended). There is as much variety of opinion and disagreement about the merits of, say, classical music players and performances than there is of jazz. We all have a tendency to consider our preferred style of music unique, and while every genre clearly has many subjective stylistic (subjective) traits, at their core, all genres share similar values; not every aspect of music and performance is subjective. We have set a very high bar by discussing the very best players of this music and I simply didn't hear anything special in Lytle's playing on the two clips posted. So, to paraphrase you: "what I hear disagrees with what I read about Lytle, so the records go back". Jazz players and income: Clearly Wynton is an exception. My comments were a reaction to your statement: "When an artist is popular and makes a good living, he can't be playing jazz". As we all know, Bird lived a troubled life and squandered much of his earnings on booze and drugs, but the truth is that "popular" jazz artists did and do make very good livings. Of course, there are many players who scrape by; but, they are not "popular"; and isn't that true of any profession? Louis Armstrong made a good living, so did Coltrane, Rollins, Miles, Shorter, and Benny Goodman. Speaking of Benny, there is so much great stuff by him, these clips also feature the great Lionel Hampton; NOT the world's greatest vibist :-). I would be glad to "enlighten": http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3ptPK7iNweIhttp://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aeg1056UDckhttp://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0U8a-s4bYfY |
I have not heard (seen) the Abbado/Berlin, but I have not heard anything by Abbado that I have not liked; he is brilliant.
Two others to consider if the music is of top priority: Karajan/Berlin. There is something about Karajan's treatment of Beethoven that strikes a chord with me. I know some feel that it is stark with too much emphasis on precision; still, it somehow rings true for me. The sound is very good, the video less so with too much emphasis on the conductor. I know I am contradicting myself, given Bernstein's drama and theatricality, but my favorite and the one I own is Bernstein's 1989 performance celebrating the fall of the Berlin Wall. He conducted an orchestra comprised of members of orchestras from around the world and famously substituted the word " Freude" (Joy) with "Freiheit" (Freedom) in the chorale. Normally this kind of thing would piss off the purist in me, but the feeling of the importance and symbolism of the moment is palpable in this performance. I think it is the one to own. Both sound and video are very good. But not as good as what I heard/saw at my neighbor's place when he invited me over to check out his new 5.1 HT setup a few weeks ago. The audio and video on this Bluray release is spectacular, the music (interpretation) of this Christian Thielemann/Vienna DVD does not compare to either the Karajan or Bernstein with tempos that are too fast IMO. I'll take good sound with great music over great sound with good music any day. |
Empty!?! Empty!?! Damn! At first I thought you were referring to the "Bebop" clip; "loud, fast and empty" was exactly my reaction. I didn't say that because... well, like my grandmother used to say.....You seemed to like the "Bebop" clip, even if it wasn't by Diz.
But, wait!, you mention the audience; so, you must be referring to either the Horace Silver "Cool Eyes" or the Phil Woods/Tom Harrell. Now I am really confused. On the Horace Silver clip the Dutch audience looks like they don't know what hit them and seem totally uninvolved; in spite of the great music. On the Phil Woods/Tom Harrell clip what I can see of the audience is mainly two gentlemen who are clearly digging the playing (big smiles of appreciation on their faces), and there is big applause and hollering after the solos. But, that tune IS faster and louder; so that must be the one you refer to.
First of all, I didn't think "loud" or "fast" was ever an automatic disqualifier. But, empty? This must be the first time that I have heard Phil Wood's or Tom Harrell's playing referred to as "empty": complete mastery of the language of bebop and its harmony, great swing (yes, fast and relentless; but, that is the point of the tune: "Tenor Of The Time") from some of the acknowledged contemporary masters of the music, especially Woods and Harrell. So, in the spirit of enlightenment and sharing can you expound on that a bit? What is it the makes it empty for you; what is lacking? Better yet, what do you hear in the "Bebop" clip that you don't hear in the "Tenor Of The Time". Perhaps the music was better than you think, and had the intended impact on you simply because a very good argument can be made for the tenor of our time being "loud, fast and empty". But, the playing? No way! |
Rok, thanks for expounding. We are all entitled to like what we like; simple as that. It's interesting to try and understand the reasons why (it is for me, anyway) that's all. In this case we will just have to call it a case of Mars and Venus. I find Faddis's playing on the Bebop clip to be exactly what you object to in your account of your trumpet playing colleges buds: "how fast and high can I play this"; bordering on the "bullshit" for me. Harrell's is a thoughtful and well constructed solo. Different strokes for different folks. BTW, don't be to critical of his "body language"; he has been living with (and controlling) schizophrenia for many years and that is his usual stage demeanor.
Cheers. |
Rok, thanks. I can't disagree with you about anything in your post; save for the IMPLICATION that having the training and being polished precludes being able to convey emotion. Clearly there are performers that were born with "the gift" and can get the message across wether they have the training or not. I don't know much about Mahalia Jackson's background to know wether she had any training or not; I just know how much I love her singing. But, the flaw in your argument is not in the substance of the general point, but in the specific example. Saying that Kathleen Battle singing spirituals doesn't move you the way that Mahalia Jackson does proves little. Have you ever heard Mahalia Jackson sing Schubert Lieder? I haven't either, but I am fairly confident that it wouldn't make me cry the way Battle can. This a common mistake by performers; singing or playing in a genre outside their comfort zone. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Qki5oy1z14 |
Ah, The Lobotomy Award lives! Well, knowing how you feel about Nina Simone, that would appear to be the obvious answer; but, I don't think so. Simone's version is great, interesting and definitely sets a mood, but not the kind of mood that I think one can be "swept away" by. The fact that there are two operatic versions is, I think, a decoy ;-) If I had to choose which one of the two sweeps ME away, it is easily the Maria Callas. Both versions are good and both use the exact same, and original, Gershwin orchestration. The Price is ordinary with bland orchestral playing and uneven singing (the intonation on "fish": ouch!). On the Callas, the clarinet solo at the end of the introduction tells us right away that this will be the better "caviar" with beautiful phrasing and expression compared to the one on the Price which is very straight with zero rubato. Callas is wonderful. That leaves the Janis Joplin: I love Joplin, but not the kind of thing that comes to mind (at first) as your kind of thing. But, as Duke said..... This one is raw, but is pure emotion; that's the one that I think "swept O-10 away". |
O-10, I want to thank you for a most wonderful thread. I hope my contributions have been enjoyable; I know yours and those of the other contributors have been for me. The marriage of great music with good sound is a wondrous thing and your thread has done a great deal towards uplifting the one-sided pursuit of good sound without enough consideration for the quality of the music that is so prevalent among audiophiles. Without meaning to be indulgent about this, I find it too frustrating to engage in the sparring that I find myself in on a regular basis (wether initiated by me or not), so I will be taking a breather from the thread for the foreseeable future. Knowing how meaningful this music and this thread are to you, I felt I owed you an explanation for my absence. I think this was my first contribution to the thread. There was a reason why it was, and it still is. Best wishes. http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=plpp&v=I777BcgQL9o&p=PL202DD92307605864 |
Happy New Year to all! Glad to see the thread alive and well with some great music clips. Hadn't checked the thread in quite a while, and while not intending to post, this subject is a little too close to home to let a factual error slip by:
The saxophone was not a French creation but the creation of Adolf Sax, a Belgian, who in 1842 moved to Paris from Brussels to demonstrate his new creation to his friend Hector Berlioz who went on to promote the new instrument. Sax's father was also an instrument maker, and Adolf's other major achievement was the development of the bass clarinet to, essentially, what we know today. Interestingly, Sax's first saxophone was a bass saxophone (in C). The instrument gained in popularity pretty quickly and it became almost "de rigueur" for major composers to use the instrument in at least one new work. "Bolero" was one of these with two saxophone parts usually thought to be soprano and tenor. In fact, the parts were written for sopranino and tenor. Due to the relative rarity of the sopranino and the fact that, due to its range, the sopranino has to "hand off" the last several measures of the solo to the tenor, it became common to play the sopranino part on the soprano which is capable of playing the entire melody.
Good listening to all! |
****He should rank at the top of Jazz composers. Right up there with Ellington.****
You're in good company.
Gunther Schuller on Mingus' "Epitaph":
"a musical summary of one of the great jazz composers of the century"
****How does he do that?****
You may find this of interest; by John DeCarlo (Jazz.com)
"Mingus' compositional style matured in New York City during the 1950s. His recording ventures and regular workshops allowed him to thoroughly explore new musical territory, and to bring ideas to life that undoubtedly had been stirring in his mind.
Like Ellington, Mingus saw the need to develop extended forms in jazz. He began to experiment by modifying conventional forms and finding ways to create the sharp contrasts and variety that became trademarks of the Mingus style. Examples of Minguss range and eclecticism can be heard in �Haitian Fight Song� and �Ysabel's Table Dance.�
One of his trademark techniques as a composer was to create rhythmic contrast between sections of a piece by manipulating the time feel and groove. This technique can be found in many examples of his work, and can range from switching between walking bass lines to doubling every note, to more complicated metric modulations and superimposed rhythms.
An element of his compositional style is the blending of measured against unmeasured space in music, to extend forms and create contrast. He often followed precise written and rehearsed passages with sections of undetermined length, employing set musical cues to provide a malleable departure from an established section. This is an idea that is quite prevalent in contemporary compositions, and often one of the only ways for a composer to achieve the desired balance between improvised and composed elements without jeopardizing the cohesive flow of the music.
Another technique Mingus used often was layering many parts consecutively to build tension. In this practice, sections of a given composition consist of layered vamps or repeated musical phrases. One musician leads, providing an introduction, while the others gradually add their respective layers. This creates steady development and flow without departing from the original material. It also leaves standard devices for developing a composition untouched and reserved for other important moments. This technique can be heard on �Moanin�.
Mingus used collective improvisations as a form of written texture. He would give his band members some kind of musical guidelines for a given situation, and essentially have them improvise counterpoint. While this technique may sound to some listeners as a contemporary device, it harkens back to the early forms of improvisation found in New Orleans jazz.
What make this idea seem so fresh in Mingus' music are the arrangements and the musicians' more modern approach to improvisation, sometimes in an atonal context with complex rhythmic variation. He used this to increase tension and support the progressive nature of his forms. Into the early 1960s, Mingus continued to experiment with incorporating free improvisation, rich textures and color and variety through orchestration." |
|
Man, O-10, you just sent me back forty years (ouch!) with those Deodato clips. Nothing beats the sound of a Fender Rhodes piano on that kind of groove. I was a kid in high school when that was on the radio constantly; love it! I believe it was the great John Tropea on guitar on those cuts. Made me think of another player who I was into back then who you might like if you like that kind of sound. The first clip "Last Tango In Paris" features a young Michael Brecker on tenor with one of my favorite recorded solos of his, and probably the reason that I started to play the saxophone after having started on clarinet a few years earlier. Thanks for the trip down memory lane. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OCBt4TMRl4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E92y1wr2Gs |
Ok, so what IS jazz? Someone famous once said that if you have to ask you'll never know. Someone else said that he doesn't know, but knows it when he hears it. Cop outs; and too easy! What this thread, now approaching 2000 posts, proves is that it is unlikely that there will be agreement about the definition. So what? Is not what really matters wether it is good music or not? We can get so hung up on the definition that we miss the forest for the trees. To use an analogy: I think that one thing that most can agree on is that a premium aged sirloin steak is superior to even the best hamburger. But, not every steak is superior to a good burger; you can have a pretty crappy steak which makes a good burger a much better, and delicious, choice. Sometimes music lovers fall into a comfort zone based on genre and dismiss other genres to the extent that they are tolerant of inferior music making simply because it happens to be in their preferred genre; while, at the same time, dismissing great music making simply because it is in a genre deemed inferior. O-10 has made two posts recently that IMHO are particularly important to the evolution of this thread. In one was a comment about not yet exploring the '70's; the other was the Deodato clips. Not because I think those clips are particularly worthy, but because they introduce a genre that merits much more attention. Funk-jazz, electric-jazz, fusion-jazz; whatever one wants to call it. Again, what exactly IS jazz? To me, and hard to dispute, jazz is music in which key elements are improvisation, a high level of interaction between the players, and a high level of rhythmic and harmonic sophistication in that interaction. For me, classical music does not meet ALL those criteria, neither does rock; pop certainly doesn't. So ..... This meets all those criteria, and laid the ground work for Deodato and countless others. Herbie Hancock's Headhunters was an amazing band; funky grooves on a par with those laid down by James Brown's band at their best combined with instrumental virtuosity and very advanced improvisational sophistication. It may not be like his work with Miles and Shorter, but every bit as hip. Mike Clark kills on drums (not bad for a white dude in this kind of company), Benny Maupin is the antithesis of Michael Brecker, few notes but funky as hell; and Herbie, amazing. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mMcQfyuHVk8 |
|
Some thoughts about electric instruments: one may prefer the sound of acoustic instruments, but players choose to use electric or acoustic piano and bass not because one kind is intrinsically superior to the other. They are different animals altogether with not only different sounds but different response and feel which place different demands on the player; which, in turn, opens different avenues of expression. The player makes a judgment call as to which is more appropriate for the style of music. It's not a coincidence that Herbie Hancock. Chick Corea, Deodato and many others chose the Fender Rhodes piano. That sound in a way defined the 70's and I disagree that the music would be better served with an acoustic piano. It's almost like saying "I prefer the sound of the bass clarinet to that of the tenor saxophone, why didn't Coltrane use the bass clarinet instead?" ; after all, they are both single reed woodwinds in Bb and have the same range. O-10 mentioned Weather Report one of the greatest bands from this period. Joe Zawinul was a founder and key member, and later formed his "Syndicate". Check out the electric bass sound on this clip; can't do this on the acoustic bass. The rhythm section is on fire. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q6SbaYPU2LA |
Now, now, Rok, you promised to "never again". Well, this is one of those times when I have to ask myself: "Do I let that comment go by in the interest of not getting Rok riled up? Or, do I respond to the comment in a way that promotes healthy debate, and take my chances; after all he DID open the door. Hell, we know the answer..... :-) Two issues: ****This reminded me of the Hancock piece**** Huh!? I don't get it, but one's REACTION to music is personal and subjective; good enough for me. Similarities: instrumental, electric instruments, Latin percussion, same era. That's where the similarities end and says nothing about style, and overall vibe. Still, it made you think of it; can't argue with that and to think of good music is always a good thing. ****this is better than the Hancock piece**** Is an apple better than a banana? Not trying to be provocative, Rok; but, that comment demands a comparison of the two. Like you, I love that stuff; but, it is nothing like Herbie's music. Santana's band was very exciting (dynamic range?) like few others, but was clearly coming, first and foremost, out of a rock bag with Latin and funk elements. Herbie's Headhunters were jazz players bringing that sensibility to a funk bag. It's not a question of perfection, the level of improvisation, nuance, and command of harmony is not even in the same ballpark; or, should I say, fruit bowl. So, you like apples more than bananas; no problem there. But, better? Not in my kitchen :-) BTW, this is THE live version of that Santana tune; amazing time in music history: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AqZceAQSJvc |
Aargh! I can try Spanish, but I don't think it would matter. Sorry for the sarcasm, but I don't understand what is unclear about what I am saying.
I did not say that we cannot judge art at a time other than the era when it was created. I said that we cannot remove the historical context or backdrop of the era during which it was created when judging it at a later time and that it is that backdrop that allows a superior example of that art. And of course the great artists represented their respective eras; that's the whole point, they always do. If we understand what was going in historically, socially and in other respects of life in a particular era, THEN we can judge wether the artist is doing a good job of reflecting that or not. That is, assuming we understand some basic things about music in general; if we are able to appreciate why Santana is nothing like Headhunters. It is a different social and political climate today, it is inspiring a different message. Anyway, look, you fight the message every step of the way, especially for someone who "considers himself the least informed on this thread". Or was that sarcasm or lip-service? if you still have to ask:
****why pick up Fusion, when Hubbard and Mingus are sitting on the same shelf. Makes sense based on my premise!****
then you really don't understand MY premise. A premise that, as much as I don't like to pull the "I am a musician" card, is shared by the vast majority of musicians; perhaps that may have some significance for you. So, I have tried every which way to explain that the point is that there are good examples of every genre; just as there are bad in every genre. If you really can't understand why I may want to, on any given day, listen to a good example of "fusion" as opposed to Mingus; or why regurgitated backwards-looking jazz may not be as appealing as Mingus on any given day then I don't think there is anywhere further to go with this discussion; for now.... |
Learsfool, thank you for you comments. I completely agree with everything you have said, and I don't think my comments said otherwise. Remember we were not talking about what Wynton "does for jazz"; I made my feelings clear calling him a great embassador for it, and I certainly made them clear re his trumpet playing skills ("he sounds fabulous"). Although, I would still argue that he has not added much to the evolution of jazz trumpet playing; stylistically, and the opinion of the overwhelming majority of jazz trumpeters I know. The discussion was a simple one, and the comments just as: who would we prefer to listen to? And why? And I also made it clear that he is "definitely worth listening to". On wether he is one of the greatest jazz trumpet players that has ever lived; which (going back to the discussion) is, ultimately, what would make ME choose to pull out one of his records instead of others. If that is what you are saying, I would have to respectfully disagree. As a trumpet player, he is a phenom. And, btw, it is also the majority opinion within the Jazz trumpet playing circles that I know. Still, I think you would agree the subject of Wynton was not the big-picture being discussed, but finding "the good in any genre". As an interested individual, I would much rather have Rok be able to appreciate the folly in his comment that Stravinsky ("20th century classical") is not worthy compared to Mozart (I am paraphrasing) "PERIOD", than my views about Wynton. Thanks as always for the excellent comments and contributions. |
O-10, very good advise, and I do accept Rok as he is; that is why I am still here and continue to interact with him. I would only add that the same should apply to all. Rok, "retractions" cannot be demanded. I am not sure what exactly you want me to detract from my "first paragraph"; although I realize some of what I wrote is of a personal nature. Now, and maybe this will give you some insight into (as O-10 said) "who I am", and why your tone (often sarcastic), your rants , belligerence, and your sometimes insulting comments (like the ones directed at Acman3) set a certain tone in these discussions. Additionally, we are discussing subjects that are not simply "fun" (as you once said). I take these subjects very seriously and comments that you have made are every bit as much of a personal nature for me; the reasons why should be obvious. From my vantage point you don't own the comments that you make and are unwilling to see why, in the context of a discussion, saying something like "As usual the Frogman missed the boat" (just one that comes to mind) might, just might, cause ill will. Don't get me wrong, I don't need you approval on music matters; but it should be obvious why some of this can rub someone the wrong way. The truth is that you have a history of creating ill will on many of this forum's threads; not because "there are a lot of bullies out there", but because you don't practice what you preach: "words matter". So, I would encourage to think about your "style" a bit more; or at least be a little more conscious of how it affects those around you. Or not. As before I am willing to move on and go about the business of sharing and talking music; hopefully in a respectful way, disagreements and all. I don't expect, and certainly am not asking, you to change anything; we are all big boys. However, anyone who insists on simply ranting without much editorializing needs to be prepared for a reaction that may not be what one's liking. Peace. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xV8HT0Xb6q0Without a doubt, one of the greatest saxophone solos on a mainstream-pop hit record. By no one other than the great Phil Woods; even if he is "fat" as Rok is quick to point out to us :-) |
Learsfool, great comments and we have no fundamental disagreement. I love the Picasso/Stravinsky comment; perfect! Don't mean to go round in circles re Wynton; no question that he is an amazing musician. I think the difference of opinion is really a question of degree and where one personally draws the line crossing over to greatness. Again, time will tell if, fifty or one hundred years from now, jazz lovers will buy his recordings alongside those of Clifford and Miles; and if jazz students will be transcribing his solos. Which brings up an aspect of all this that is related to your other great comparison; Wynton/Strauss, and why I think we are drawing that line in different places. As you know (especially being a horn player), Strauss wrote not only some amazing horn parts, but some of the most beautiful, rapturous and almost impossibly gorgeous music. If ever I have a criticism of his music (especially when playing it) is that it is almost too much beauty. This is something that is difficult to put into words and is almost like eating two portions of some incredible dessert; incredible, but after a while you just have to put the fork down. No composer was better at prolonging a harmonic resolution. Because of this my favorite Strauss tends to be the shorter operas (Salome, Elektra) and his tone poems. Still, and in spite of all that beauty much of which, as you point out, is derivative I can hear just a few bars of even unfamiliar Strauss and know that it is Strauss; either because of the shape of the melodies or (usually) those wonderful chord voicings and the sudden and unexpected dissonances. Likewise, it is easy to know, after only a few bars of a solo, when it is Miles, or Morgan, or Hubbard playing; they all had clear and unique voices stylistically. I don't hear as much of that in Wynton's playing; but truth be told he can do a lot of things as a trumpet player that none of those other "greats" can even approach. He really is amazing. |
During a recording session multiple "takes" (a recorded performance beginning to end) of a tune are usually recorded. Sometimes the first performance of the tune is so good that the players (and/or producer) feel there is no need for another and that is what one hears on the final product; and, since there is a certain mystique (due to the spontaneity factor) around "first" takes they will sometimes be labeled as such on the LP/CD. However, even in these cases they will record "alternate" takes as backups in case of later technical issues with the "first" or simply a change of opinion about the musical merit of it. These alternate takes are considered good enough for the final product even of they are not used; although they may be included and labeled as such (usually in later compilations).
Recordings (or takes) can get damaged or lost because of the effects of time or human error and viable alternate takes may not exist. What may be left are simply "first" or "second" takes that may or may not have been intended for the final product. The inclusion of a "second" take is more than likely a way to complete the document of that recording session for aficionados who are eager to hear every available bit of the artist's work even if not the very best. |
****My overall, and lasting impression, was one of sadness****
Indeed! Can you imagine having to leave your country for artistic freedom?! Actually, I know all about having to leave one's country for freedom; but, that has nothing to do with jazz and is way too personal for this thread. Europe during the early part of the twentieth century was indeed a very sad place with a great deal of social and political turmoil that makes much (not all) of our American "turmoil" seem petty by comparison. One silver lining was that the sadness inspired some incredible, if difficult and dark, music. In typical American fashion we tend to forget how blessed we are in this country; problems and all. |
Rok, just curious, what do you base the "arrogant twerk" comment on? If you are basing it on his comment about Beethoven, what is arrogant about a statement of fact (Beethoven's laborious composing methodology); especially one in which he praises Beethoven as being "one of the greatest creators of music"?
"Most people who knew him through dealings connected with performances spoke of him as polite, courteous and helpful." - Erik Satie
****And The Masters did not live in the age of hype / media, and the advantages that can bring, if a person is a darling of the press.****
Are you aware that he was far from wealthy and had to be financially supported throughout his career by, among others, Leopold Stokowski? If you are suggesting that his acclaim is the result of "hype", I could tell you that you are seriously mistaken, but I think it would be much more productive to encourage you to actually familiarize yourself with his works before making those insinuations. Have you heard "The Firebird", "Petrushka", "Symphony In Three Movements"? From one of the greatest musical minds ever:
"The death of Stravinsky means the final disappearance of a musical generation which gave music its basic shock at the beginning of this century and which brought about the real departure from Romanticism. Something radically new, even foreign to Western tradition, had to be found for music to survive, and to enter our contemporary era. The glory of Stravinsky was to have belonged to this extremely gifted generation and to be one of the most creative of them all." - Pierre Boulez
Now, re your life span stats:
I hope we can agree that the size of the output is no indication of its quality. Nonetheless, it is true that Mozart was an incredible genius with an output of over six hundred published works (and probably many unpublished); although some are clearly more memorable than others. But, did you know that Stravinsky wrote about twice as many works as Beethoven? So, if one considers that Stravinsky lived about one third longer than Beethoven, then it can fairly be said that Stravinsky was more prolific than Beethoven; for whatever that is worth.
BTW, did you know that Bird wanted to study with Stravinsky? |
****Are you trying to destory all of my idols in one night? :)**** Now, THAT'S very funny. Not at all; even if it may seem like it. Just trying to push your process of discovery (Stravinsky) in a more open-minded direction. I am truly glad that, even after your previous rants about Stravinsky and "modern" composers in general, that you have decided to give Igor a shot. However, you seem to be going into it with a bias against him. Simply an observation on my part based on what you have written now and previously, and probably just as unreliable as comments about Stravinsky's personality. Me? I would rather wait until I meet him :-) before making such a judgment and let his music do the talking first. Most importantly, if one of my acknowledged idols says "Hey, check this out," I will look long and hard for what it is I am not seeing (hearing) at first. But, just for kicks and some good natured idol destruction: http://stillchaos.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/the-necessity-of-arroganceFrom Beethoven.ws : "In Prince Lichnowski's house in Vienna, where he lived, he was said to be stubborn. He would deliberately arrive late at meal times and he paid little attention to the way he dressed. The young genius had always had a brusque, arrogant personality." "God is closer to me than others of my art" - LV Beethoven http://mikelynchcartoons.blogspot.com/2009/12/schulzs-beethoven-schroeders-muse.htmlI don't know which of Stravinsky's works you ordered besides "L'Histoire", but keep something in mind when you listen to them. Stravinsky, probably more so than any other major composer, was known for composing in an amazing range of styles; in fact, he was criticized for that. So, before making a final verdict I would make sure you have heard a fairly wide range of his music. |
I, too, feel lukewarm about Chano's flamenco/jazz marriage; interesting, but it doesn't grab me. Extremely accomplished player, but aside from the heavier dose of flamenco, I don't hear anything in his piano playing that Chick Corea wasn't doing thirty+ years ago; and it is, well, not quite as good. He has clearly studied Chick Corea's playing. I have a soft spot for flamenco and always appreciate an honest attempt to bring the music of various cultures together, but in this case...... A couple of things don't work for me: in the "jazzier" tunes there is a rhythmic conflict when the flamenco hand claps are part of the musical picture. In jazz, the emphasis on beats two and four is key and an important part of what gives it it's swagger; in flamenco, there is an emphasis on beat one that creates an odd rhythmic feeling in jazz and makes it sound a little messy to my ears. In addition to that, and at the risk of making politically incorrect generalizations, many (if not most) Latin jazz musicians bring a particular rhythmic feeling to jazz that is unique. This should not be surprising and is as it should be; the same can probably be said, to some degree, about any nationality. If you have ever ordered spaghetti and meatballs while visiting Mexico you know that it tends to taste a little, well, Mexican :-). In the Monk tune Chano plays great, but it doesn't have that unique and kind of quirky rhythmic feeling that Monk's music likes: more emphasis on two and four and further behind the beat as if each beat is being stretched. Chano plays it with that typical Latin feel that is more on top of the beat, and sometimes has a "ball rolling down the stairs" sensation; probably an exaggeration, but gives an idea (I hope). http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7cR-nHNPROUhttp://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl8jSzwvtswThis one is for you Rok. You can skip to 23:00; very nice playing by Wynton with that impossibly beautiful trumpet tone of his: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ILJmn0041dg |
****What American genre would be comparable to Son? Not in style, but place in the society's musical history.****
Great and fascinating question!
First of all, yes, some (not all; strictly speaking) of the music on BVSC is "son"; one of the big hits from that record "Chan Chan" is definitely a "son". I think the answer to your question is found in the name of another Cuban music style, "Guajira". The two are similar and sometimes a song may be described as "Guajira-Son". The well known song "Guantanamera" is a guajira ("Guantanamera, guajira Guantanamera....."). The non-musical, literary definition of "guajira/o" is: a person from the countryside. The lyrics of these songs often speak about the beauty of the a Cuban countryside. "Son" is basically Cuba's country music; a kind of hill-billy music.
However, when one considers that son, guajira, and other forms morphed into what would later be known as salsa, the genre probably most representative of and recognizable as Cuba's musical identity, it is not too much of a stretch to look at son as Cuba's blues. The blues, as we all know, is a key ingredient of jazz, the genre generally considered America's most important musical contribution. From this standpoint, the two are very similar. |
Chazro, thanks for the comments. Your point is well taken, but classic son predates what we now know as salsa. As usual when trying to establish timelines re the evolution of a music form the lines get blurred. As you point out, son is a key ingredient in salsa, but before the brassy, big-band like salsa bands came to be (with their complex arrangements, perhaps in part due to the influence of the American dance bands), son was performed with much simpler instrumentation and had a much "folksier" vibe. The guitar was at the forefront and would be replaced later by the piano and the percussion used a generally lighter touch. The overall rhythmic feeling, structure and other elements such as call and response and vocal improvisation is like and became the heart of salsa, as you point out. Classic son: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YDp3l-syaWcOne thing is undeniable, it swings like crazy, as you say. This is a classic "guajira (-son)". "Lamento Guajiro". Trans. "Countryboy's Lament". Cuban blues? http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_5bY6WM3-W4Beautiful stuff! |
Eloquently and beautifully stated.
Rok, your comments surprise me given your deep appreciation for music and musicians.
****Ask the average working person in this country****
****Many / most people, work all their lives perfecting or improving their craft. Not just musicians.****
All bias aside, professional musicians are not average working persons, and most "working persons" don't even have a craft; never mind spending their lives perfecting and improving what they do for work. That has not been my experience. Of course there are many walks of life besides music that involve a craft and many of those craftsmen do spend their lives perfecting and improving their craft. The successful ones often make much more than $100,000.
****Doctors are immeasurably more important to a society than bassoon players. A ludicrous comparison.****
That's a matter of opinion as already pointed out. And while I would have chosen viola or banjo (sorry, couldn't resist) instead, most successful doctors make far more than $100,000, so I don't understand your objection to the comparison.
----------
Q: How can one tell if the floor of the concert hall stage is level?
A: The violist is drooling out of both sides of his mouth.
:-):-):-) |
****comments like this just encourage him.****
I don't think he needs encouragement, nor do I want to take on that role, but I think that kind of perspective is sorely missing in these discussions.
****you should always carry a card with the phone number of the New York Philharmonic, ****
Well, actually, I do; but, not for that reason.
****let the String section of the NYP not show up for work, and then let the gabarge collectors not show up for work!! See which wheel gets the grease.****
You might be surprised. You can look look up the numbers, but if memory serves, the recent sanitation worker's strikes in NYC lasted considerably longer than the most recent musicians strike, and one that I was involved with, the Broadway musicians strike . Now, I realize you referred to a NYP strike, but keep an eye on the Met Opera's labor/ management issues being dukes out as we "speak"; you just may have an answer very soon; unfortunately.
****Can feel and intuition in music ever be programed?**** - Acman3
Of course not!
****That is, to reconcile what you can do, with, what's in your head. In the book a lot of guys wished they could play what was in their heads.
I don't think I understand that statement. If you can think it or visualize it, what's to keep you from playing it. We are speaking of professional players, of course. Is it a physical thing?****
Remember that old favorite term of yours (mine)? "nuts and bolts" . What it takes to be able to execute what is in a musician's head: impossible to describe dedication, commitment, and years (life-long) of practice; and why they are underpaid. And, BTW, this does not apply only to jazz musicians. A classical player may have a perfectly clear idea of the tone he wants to produce, but there is no substitute for the practice.
****Check out his dress. Does not have anything to do with his playing, but it sure does look disrespectful. ****
I know Metheny; we went to the same conservatory. I assure you that lack of respect for the music or his elders is the last thing he is guilty of.
****This is true, but, the U.S. Art world is not blameless for this being the case.****
Now, things are getting interesting! |
Sounds like a great book, and I commend you for your passion and interest in the art. I agree with all that is stated in those quotes. I would only point out that art is, in fact, linear in the sense that what came before influences what will follow; but, I do agree that it is not linear in the sense that what follows is not necessarily better. I agree that Stravinsky and Schoenberg is not "better" than Mozart or Brahms; only a fool would claim that. Great art is, indeed, timeless. However, it would also be foolish to claim that there has been nothing after Mozart or Brahms that is of equal value. What distinguishes great art is not the value of what it attempts to portray (the times and society), but how well it portrays it; no matter how we may feel about the times and society.
BTW, what is the book? |
You guys are missing the point, and what Rok hits on (and the Harlem photo) goes back to the issue of popularity. Jazz will never be as popular as it once was, and there will never be as many movers and shakers living at any one point in time; that is not being disputed. The problem is when blanket statements like these are made:
"There were more jazz musicians in the 60's"
"It was a jazz community then but not now"
"It's about the money now"
"Players today don't care as much about producing great art"
C'mon now, those things are simply not true, and when you guys are spending a good deal of time and on a regular basis around these players and experiencing these things first hand, then you can make those proclamations with authority; until then..... Look, sharing of ideas is a great thing, but it is important to have a more comprehensive scope. The reason that I feel strongly about this is two-fold: you guys love jazz and I believe you are way too quick to dismiss much contemporary jazz. Not necessarily to like it, but to acknowledge its integrity; there's a lot of new jazz out there worth listening to. But, more importantly, is the irony of this outlook. That outlook does not help, but hinders, the promotion of jazz itself and I hope we can all agree, at least, that the future of jazz is worth promoting. |
Here's one of the most interesting and forward-looking young saxophone players around and making some very interesting music; and an amazing instrumentalist. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NKgvNKHCBdMAnd here he is, along with Joshua Redman, as soloist "ringers" in a band comprised of HIGH SCHOOL (!) players. First of all, check out the expressions on the faces of the kids (!) in the saxophone section as they listen to McCaslin and Redman solo; check out that kid on bass playing his ass off. If that doesn't bode well for the future of jazz, I don't know what does. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvy4xbWJmp8McCaslin's playing (even if a little too long) is an absolutely amazing display of ideas and virtuosity. Redman also plays very well and more melodically, and seems to have a look of worry as McCaslin plays, as if saying: "I have to follow THAT?" But, it's the kids that really impress. Yes, contrary to popular cliche, they can learn a lot in school. Don't worry folks, jazz is alive and well. |
