The theme of what is good or not keeps coming up in different guises; as expected and as it should. Just as with the music itself, what distinguishes a good reviewer from a bad one is not wether he reviews music that we happen to like, but wether he is able to express in words how the music touches him/her; and, to do it in a credible and eloquent way. It's never fair to discredit a reviewer without first making and understanding that distinction; imo.
O-10, loved the a Youn Son Nah clip. What a voice! Luscious and very sexy in some very unusual ways; and technically excellent. She straddles a fine line just short of affectation with a nice combination of credibility (when singing in English) and some obviously Asian influences in her vocal inflections and overall sensibility. When I first listened to the clip one of the things that came to mind was "her intonation and accuracy are so good that she probably did many different takes and used some editing to get a good complete version". Nope, she can really do it!:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t2Kki-mx7uw
Anyone familiar with the folk music of that part of the world will hear that influence in this performance. I think it's amazing, if perhaps an acquired taste for some:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dVehcCuwZeA
"Alternate groove" indeed; and a good one. Thanks for sharing. |
****But the real shocker for me, is that not one of our 'pros', commented on the performance of Water Music and Fireworks by the French Orchestra. ESP, the conductor!! What do you think of this guy?****
Well, if you insist; and, please understand that my lack of enthusiasm for this performance and Niquet is the very reason that I had not commented. I, too, love the sound of period instruments and I love performances that educate about the history of the music; but, I have some issues with this performance.
First of all, for a really great performance of this beautiful music on original instruments try Trevor Pinnock with The English Concert; and for my favorite with modern instruments but still using period performance practice try the Marriner/St Martin In The Fields.
The Niquet performance by comparison has some real problems with the ensemble playing. There are some major and distracting problems with intonation, especially the horns and trumpets. While period instruments (natural trumpets and horns) are harder to play in tune than modern instruments, recordings like Pinnock's don't suffer nearly to this degree. Additionally, having the woodwinds standing was an odd choice. It looks good, but there is an imbalance between the winds and strings, the winds being too prominent in relation to the strings. Overall, not a memorable performance on musical grounds; but, impressive visually and educationally and there is value in that. Niquet is the type of conductor that drives me nuts. There is, again, a sense that it is about what looks good. His technique is showy and dramatic with large motions that serve no musical purpose. Like the Andre Rieu performance, it's not my cup of tea. BTW, the Baremboin/LVB is great; he is one of the very best classical musicians on the scene today.
There is a historical inaccuracy in the presentation of the Niquet performance. The Music For Royal Fireworks was composed for wind band (no strings); that is what was heard at that first royal performance. It wasn't until later that Handel reorchestrated it for full orchestra as heard on the Niquet performance.
Lastly, you'll just have to take my word for this (perhaps Learsfool will chime in on this), and I bring it up because you have often commented about performers appearing to be working too hard at "performing"; but, I would bet that those musicians were coached to "perform"; to make gestures that looked good and made them appear to be "involved". This goes to my previous comment and it's something that, having been in those shoes, one just knows. Glorious music 'though. |
The theme of what is good or not keeps coming up in different guises; as expected and as it should. Just as with the music itself, what distinguishes a good reviewer from a bad one is not wether he reviews music that we happen to like, but wether he is able to express in words how the music touches him/her; and, to do it in a credible and eloquent way. It's never fair to discredit a reviewer without first making and understanding that distinction; imo. O-10, loved the a Youn Son Nah clip. What a voice! Luscious and very sexy in some very unusual ways; and technically excellent. She straddles a fine line just short of affectation with a nice combination of credibility (when singing in English) and some obviously Asian influences in her vocal inflections and overall sensibility. When I first listened to the clip one of the things that came to mind was "her intonation and accuracy are so good that she probably did many different takes and used some editing to get a good complete version". Nope, she can really do it!: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t2Kki-mx7uwAnyone familiar with the folk music of that part of the world will hear that influence in this performance. I think it's amazing, if perhaps an acquired taste for some: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dVehcCuwZeA"Alternate groove" indeed; and a good one. Thanks for sharing. |
Thanks for the clips. On that first clip, in spite of the poor audio quality, I can hear the Bob Meyer that I remember; good writer, too. Your clips led me to, and reminded me of, a clip of Bob playing with South Fla legend and Chicago native Ira Sullivan. We often bring up the topic of players who seem to go into relative obscurity and and don't seem to get their due. As has also been pointed out, and as incredible as it may seem, some artists simply don't care about popularity and fame. These guys are incredibly dedicated to their art and they just want to play their music; Ira Sullivan is one of those people. One of the most interesting people I have ever had the pleasure of knowing and one of the most incredible multi-instrumentalists ever, Ira could burn on trumpet/flugelhorn, all the saxophones and on flute. He is 83 now and still playing great. Every instrument he plays sounds like his main axe; incredible! Ira on trumpet: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=igJKk5L8EF0On tenor: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4y5-ImyDTr0On flute (along with Joe Farrell, my favorite jazz flute player):
On alto and trumpet: you can skip to 6:00 to hear an amazing exchange with another overlooked, and almost forgotten, great bebopper Red Rodney:
[URL]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=69zE8JrTdCg>http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ry-stUpBXEQ[URL]
On alto and trumpet: you can skip to 6:00 to hear an amazing exchange with another overlooked, and almost forgotten, great bebopper Red Rodney:
[URL]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=69zE8JrTdCg |
Agree about Michelle Rosewoman. And like Chazro points out, not for the faint-hearted; but, man her stuff is interesting! One of the most creative musicians on the Latin scene; she kills! Where's ONE?! http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=sHhZAIs8XrAThis intro is just beautiful! The great Howard Johnson plays some beautiful penny-whistle (!) and then kills on tuba. http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=sJ60HyN9EosAnd some keep claiming that jazz is dead?! |
Excellent questions.
****Is it possible that the French horn players, played the piece exactly as they intended. ****
Unlikely. Choice of volume, blend and tone, possibly. Those are aesthetic choices in part dictated by the conductor. However, out of tune playing is never a desirable choice. The French players were very out of tune; better in tune playing can sometimes be perceived as "smoother". The English Baroque players are simply better players. Having said that, it is probably true that orchestras back then did not demonstrate the often flawless intonation heard from modern orchestras. This is due not only to today's, overall, much higher technical standard on the part of players, but also the superiority of modern instruments. I suppose an argument could be made that "rough-around-the-edges" playing was, in fact, what was often heard back then; but, I would wager that composers back then often cringed and wished that the playing were more refined.
****Why isn't all, or at least most, Classical music played on the instruments in use when the music was first written and performed?****
Assuming the availability of enough period instruments (still intact) to go around (not a safe assumption), playing those instruments presents special challenges to players. These instruments were not fully developed design-wise with fewer (or no) keys or valves in the case of the winds. These same orchestral players would also need to be ready to play more contemporary works that require the sophistication and more complete design of modern instruments without which much of the more modern (1800 or so +) repertory would simply be unplayable. It would be almost impossible for players to keep and stay up to speed on such a wide-range arsenal of different instruments for each historical period of music. |
Nice clip, Acman3; nothing like a good tenor battle. A couple of thoughts that relate to recently discussed subjects:
Completely unimportant period instrument trivia: Craig Handy is playing a Selmer MK6 tenor and Joshua Redman a Selmer "Balanced Action". Redman's is the historically "correct" horn and is like what a player would have played in Kansas City at the time. The model Handy is playing was not made until almost twenty years later. Both great players and Redman actually captures the style of that era better than Handy who hints at a more modern harmonic sensibility. Great stuff!
Error in personnel listing: the baritone player is James Carter not Don Byron; Carter is the one with the "I am better than both those guys put together" expression on his face.
The suit thing: I agree that it's important; but, let's remember that most men wore suits and hats to walk to the drugstore. That's the way men dressed back then.
Thanks for sharing! |
O-10, Regina Carter's main influence (by her own admission) was the great Stephane Grapelli, and probably the reason for your astute observation about her tone. In addition to that it is possible that her violin is slightly larger than typical. Not all violins, while still considered "full size", are of the exact same size, and from pictures and videos it appears that her violin may be slightly larger than typical and that would be a contributor to the warm sound that you hear. Regina Carter is a fine player and I agree with your observation that she has really blossomed. Her playing has not always impressed me at a level commensurate with the rep. I am very impressed with her playing, but have to temper my enthusiasm when considering the level that I think she is striving for and not quite reaching yet in a consistent manner. She plays with a really great feel and jazz sensibility and has obviously done her homework, but there are some technical issues that, for me, distract from full enjoyment compared to, for instance, Grapelli's lofty standard. Pitch is something that great players use and manipulate as a way to add color to the tone and to project a certain attitude; by playing slightly under the pitch a certain "bluesy" attitude can be projected. However, sometimes that is simply the way the player hears things all the time and/or is the fault of a technical deficiency and there is a constant sense that she is always reaching for the pitch and not quite getting there (flat); for me, it's a distraction that isn't necessarily a deal breaker if the music is really happening in other ways. I know some will think I am nitpicking and my comment may seem unfair, but I think there is a bit of hype going on here for a variety of reasons. None of this should be surprising; I have never heard or read a qualifying comment about Grapelli's playing "having blossomed". She is a really good player, but the bottom line for me is that I don't hear enough "there there" to want to go out of my way to listen to what she has to say musically; and, if simply violin playing is what I want to hear I would prefer Grapelli (admittedly more steeped in a "hot jazz" vibe): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih_62WMfWEchttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JnhgapeBWuEAnd for someone who is still with us: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r4kvzWLSDT4 |
Ok, are you referring to the score in terms of the music (notes) written in it, or in terms of the visual APPEARENCE of the notes? If you mean the music, yes they would be identical. Berlin, being a major orchestra probably owns a set of score and parts. Austin, probably not and would rent a set from the publisher.
Now, I made the distinction between the music and the appearance of the score because some works are published by more than one publisher (public domain) while others (mainly contemporary works) are given publishing rights to one single publisher. When there is more than one publisher, the parts will look different as far as the type and size of print font used, size of the page, type of paper etc. But, the MUSIC (the NOTES) will be identical with, possibly, some very minor "corrections" of a wrong note or two. In fact, and ironically, some orchestras have owned their set for so long that the score and parts can be pretty beat up with countless penciled-in markings by different players made over the years to indicate a particular conductor's tempo and phrasing wishes, personal reminders about various musical considerations and everything from bowings for the strings (ever wonder how an entire string section bows up or down at the same time?) to sometimes hysterically funny commentary or "art work" about a hated guest conductor or colleague. This is the reason that most rental sets have a sticker on the score and individual parts stating that any markings must be made in pencil and erased before returning the set to the publisher; otherwise a fee will be billed for cleaning up the parts. Still, many of the markings remain or are not erased fully before going from Berlin to Austin and the Texans may get to see some markings or commentary in German. |
Rok, c'mon. We don't have a habit of misquoting you nor of shooting down anything. The truth is that when discussing these topics you are not a particularly good communicator via what you write. Example:
****Nuts and Bolts is a term I use to reflect an attitude. And that is, that playing music in accordance with some musical theory, and that along, can make a player great.****
Huh! If you mean this then it would go counter to everything that you have said previously about the subject.
First of all, "nuts and bolts" is not an attitude. From the first time that I used that term I have been very clear about its intended meaning: study of the rudiments of musicianship and being an instrumentalist or vocalist; music theory, rhythm, the mechanics of playing an instrument (including one's voice) etc. ALL players, regardless of genre, have to do that in order to achieve greatness. So, for the sake of clarity and for a discussion to not to turn into an incoherent mess, we should stick to that meaning of the term.
****I cannot imagine any musician, other than so-called Rock musicians, being anything other than nice human beings.****
Don't you understand how ridiculous that comment is? Have you any idea how many great musicians there are in the jazz and the classical world who are assholes? And why are you denigrating all Rock musicians?
As I wrote that comment it became clear to me what the problem is in these discussions. We all have a right to our opinions; but, we don't have a right to present them as fact without being able to back them up. I have said this before, I admire your passion and your inquisitiveness (as of late); but, with due respect, when it comes to some of these topics, you don't know what you are talking about. If you did, you wouldn't have to ask some of the questions that you do.
BTW, what happened with that on-line music course you were considering? You should do it.
Cheers. |
****Why not submit a list, for us aficionados, of GREAT Jazz players, who were great, BECAUSE, they went to Juilliard.****
I am almost speechless. I have no idea how or why you arrived at the conclusion that anyone has ever suggested this. All I can think of in response is the scene in Shawshank Redemption where Andy goes to speak to the warden after having been given proof that he can use to show that he is innocent of the crime; after several attempts at trying to get the warden to consider what he is saying he says "How can you be so obtuse?"
:-)
Now, PLEASE try to explain to me WITH EXAMPLES/QUOTES what has been said so far to suggest that a jazz player can be great BECAUSE he attended Juilliard. You, on the other hand, started this whole Juilliard mess by very clearly suggesting that you "something was wrong" with Miles because he did attend Juilliard; and absurd comment; perhaps you were joking. Please clarify. |
Not clear at all, Rok; especially given some of your other comments. Anyway, this is, once again, a case of "Mars and Venus"; some things are irreconcilable.
No one is trying to "impress". I nor Learsfool (I am confident in stating) need this forum to "impress"; actually practicing (no pun intended) what we preach is the best way to do that and we do it on a regular basis. What we try to do is offer well-intended insights into aspects of music and the music scene that are not readily available to everyone as a way for those open to the idea to expand their knowledge and appreciation. You seem intent on creating your own personal reality about what the music scene is and challenge whatever doesn't jibe with your reality. Anyway, no sweat. O-10 was correct in part with an earlier comment:
Chaqun a son gout!
Cheers |
Rok, I could continue the silliness and ask you to point out one single statement that I have made that is not defensible, but I will let your ridiculous comment pass and simply say that it is time, once again, for me to take a break from trying to have meaningful dialogue with you; unfortunately (and I mean that) it's simply too difficult and all too often devoid of the only reason that I have bothered to begin with. The issue of N&B is a prime example of why its so difficult. That you still think that I have not made it perfectly and absolutely clear what I have meant by the use of the term is really beyond my understanding. There can only be two reasons why this may be: 1. It's one more example of the common tactic to obfuscate the issue when you, yourself, are the one who makes an indefensible statement. Or 2. You have so little understanding of both the particulars of and the general conceptual premise that the term N&B addresses that you truly can't see what's right in front of you. It appears to be true that ignorance is bliss for some.
Anyway, I am sure I will be checking in again some time. Until then, Happy Listening and Happy 4th.
Cheers. |
O-10, thanks for the Old & New Dreams cut. Beautiful music and one of those improbable times when ingredients that one would think would not make a good recipe somehow come together into an unusual but delicious dish. I don't mean the individual players, as they are each masters who can play in many different styles and clearly work well together, but the individual musical parts of the tune: a beautiful and haunting melody by the horns in half-time, Ed Blackwell sounds amazing in double-time (!), while Charlie Haden's bass is the glue that holds the two contrasting forces together by straddling a fine line between the two meters. I think his ability to do that so well on this tune is a great example of, as you pointed out, the "many faces of Charlie Haden". Great stuff! |
****Frogman, that's an interesting comparison between "East of Suez" and "Night in Tunisia"; one is well known, while the other is almost unknown.**** Check out the solo "break" by Kai Winding (trombone) at 1:01 on "East Of Suez". https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PnrYk1pq12IHe quotes part of the melody of "Night In Tunisia"; the seven note melodic fragment at the end of the repeated eight measure first phrase of NIT. Obviously, that same comparison was made a long time ago. That same little melodic fragment is first heard at :25 in the clip below. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KxibMBV3nFoFurther proof that the evolution of jazz is linear; the past influences the present and future. |
No new revelation here since this has been said many times by many aficionados, but if one was forced to pick ONE musician that, more than anyone else, exemplifies what jazz is about it would have to be Satchmo. The number one aspect of jazz which defines it most and seperates it from any other music form is its rhythmic feel. Louis Armstrong played with a rhythmic feel that has never been equalled in its decisiveness and lack of ambiguity while at the same time having that great sense of looseness and swagger that defines jazz; and, on top of it all, always able to put a smile on your face. Its almost like a great magic trick; "it's impossible but he's doing it". |
O-10, all that you posted re Urbie Green is true. He is a great player and one who could play in any setting. Not really a stylistic innovator, but definitely one who pushed the envelope as far as what what possible to do on the trombone; an instrument that puts certain technical limitations on the player due to the absence of keys or valves. JJ Johnson, on the other hand, was definitely a stylistic innovator who pushed trombone playing's harmonic reach into the realm of trumpet and saxophone players with a more modern rhythmic style and grasp of harmonic language. This is apparent in this clip which also features the mentioned Al Grey; another great player, but one for whom the technical limitations of the instrument are still obvious. As great as his playing was, in Grey's improvisations one can hear much more of a swing (as opposed to bebop) approach to improvisation and a reliance on "effects" such as glissandos (slides) and the use of a mute which are all throwbacks to his Count Basie days and, reaching further back, the role of the trombone in early jazz or Dixieland. This is certainly not a criticism as his playing was certainly very exciting, but it is obvious that he "generalizes" the chord changes of the tune while JJ makes each chord change obvious and musically logical. The rhythmic feel of each is also worth noting with Grey playing with an upbeat closer to the downbeat which gives the playing a jauntier and, arguably, less relaxed feeling; all throwbacks to a less modern style. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xuDtYLSlwgMOne of my favorites has always been Slide Hampton. A modern player with an advanced harmonic language but whose tone always says "trombone!", being robust without sounding like a lower pitched trumpet. https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLxpFcEqKLShkNXTwVII-KCS10cZ4PuaP3&v=VxF_6MKiuTAHere he is with another great; Bill Watrous (first solo) who took the trombone's technical reach even further. Not long ago it was unthinkable that a trombone player might be able to play with that kind of technical facility and speed which obviously lends itself well to bebop, but requires the player to play more lightly; arguably making the instrument lose some of its characteristic growl. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hDj3k6k8mRw |
Sitting here waiting to see if I will have to serve on a jury. What better use of this time than to catch up on some of the submissions?
****It's that time of year once again. There is something just not right with this performance. Not sure what.****
Well, you're right something is definitely wrong with this "Pictures". Many details that could be discussed; but, in short, a lackluster third-rate performance of this staple of the orchestral rep. Interesting that all that is wrong with this performance is represented in and can be heard in the opening trumpet solo. This iconic melody should be played with confidence and a declamatory feeling; while not necessarily loudly, but with clear forward movement. This young player plays way too politely and not nearly inside the beat enough (no groove). The first three notes of the melody are quarter notes, the fourth and fifth are eight notes and twice as fast. Notice how he rushes through the eight notes. Then, at :31 he is late on the downbeat. Overall, not an example of good orchestral playing; to say the least. Check out Gergiev and the Kirov. |
If you think gunplay because of a dispute over chord changes is an indication of passion, I would hate to see what some folks I know would do (to you) after hearing anything Coltrane played referred to as "just fine" :-) O-10, I have a pretty good idea of what you looked for on Youtube. and all I can say is that I envy you for having witnessed some of that. I suspect it was something more along these lines: https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL7D089D2C50E97018&v=Yy_3tYlT398BTW, enjoyed the Kenny Garret clip; thanks. |
"Besame mucho" is one of the most beautiful Latin tunes, IMO; and I really like this version by Evora. The tune is not Brazilian at all (although Evora is from Cape Verde a Portuguese ex-colony); and, while the tune is often thought to be Cuban (since it was written as a Cuban rhumba) it was actually written by a Mexican composer. Here is the composer herself playing it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kIJZSs2gxdoMore often than not it is performed as a Cuban "bolero". This is a beautiful rendition in that lighter style: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C-0geZkFHKEBTW, on the Baden Powell clip the flute that Rok asks about is simply an alto flute; a flute in the key of G, being larger and lower in pitch. The reason that it looks so different is that some models of the instrument are made with a curved head joint. The length of the tube is the same, but by curving it the player doesn't have to reach out as far to reach the keys; they are particularly popular with women who don't have as long a reach as men. |
I don't necessarily disagree with you; but, remember O-10 said "new Cuban music". If that is the style that you prefer, there are better examples (the singing, for starters, is pretty weak on the Bauza clip); more to come. For now, here is another example of new Cuban music; this from one of the most interesting and accomplished young Cuban musicians, a recent arrival to the US: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifrobjkrg3cThis one's for Acman3. Interesting performance in that like most traditional Cuban music the repetitive piano "montuno" is the "glue" that keeps the implied pulse together. In Cuban music the beat, as strong as it is, is often implied. IOW, there is often nothing playing on the actual beat; it is felt strongly, but the rhythm instruments play around the beat in syncopation: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kUQv_nxDmuoTo understand just how deep the level of rhythmic command in this is, is to understand the core of Cuban music. It may not seem like much, but this is incredible: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YXpxsXC4Tdw |
No problem moving on, but IMO there is MUCH more to add; it would be a mistake to think that there is no more new Cuban music worth exploring. Much of it may not be jazz (or even Latin Jazz; whatever that is) as we may think of it, but the musical heritage of Cuba is huge and practically inexhaustible. The Fox in the video of the bar band singing Girl From Ipanema is an OK singer, but it would be a shame to end the discussion of new Cuban music with that; nothing new about that music, and not a particularly good performance. I think this is much more representative of the kind of creativity that can be found in Cuba (worth noting is that in Cuban music it is very difficult to separate the dance from the music): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xJMTA3Ay5FI |
I have to agree with O-10 re Valaida Snow. A wonderful talent, great entertainer; entertainer in an era when "jazz" was SUPPOSED to be unabashedly entertaining. Of her many talents, I like her singing the best; the most convincing. Her trumpet playing was very good, but I don't think Pops had anything to worry about. "World's second best trumpet player"? I don't think so; a bit of hyperbole in the interest of entertainment and showmanship (showomanship?). Great and fascinating story! I have to disagree, however, about that performance of "Brazil"; great classic tune. I have not seen the movie "Brazil", but I have a sneaky suspicion that this version of the tune is supposed to somehow complement the movie. Taken on its own, I find this rendition cheesy (like the movie?) and the singing downright awful; sorry. BTW, I wrote the above just before reading Rok's comments about "Brazil". Eventhough mine appear to be much more negative, I think we are actually saying the same thing. Here is the composer himself playing his composition with a typically Brazilian vibe; joyful (Carnaval) and just a touch of melancholy. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V8goep7fVXk |
Well, I'm batting .500; not bad, I suppose.
****In Cuba, like almost all other countries and cultures, history and music are inextricably interwoven.****
Could not agree more.
****I think I was on to something, when I said the "African" influence in a lot of this music does not really exist. ****
Could not agree less.
That it is considered "Cuban street music" in no way negates the African influence. In fact, depending on one's points of view, it confirms it. Surely, you understand that original musical instruments are not necessary for transporting the musical heritage. Remember the comment by some musicians that perplexed you so ("I wish I could play what I hear in my head")? Similar and related idea.
Great documentaries, btw; thanks.
I will need a day or so to comment on the Afro Cuban All Stars tracks.
Cheers |
Rok, I can only assume that you were so excited to read something "supporting" your strange stance on "the African influence" that you neglected to read the entire article. From the very article that you linked:
****I have discussed western influences on African music; it will be impossible to close this discussion without highlighting that Africans have a profound influence on world music today. We can trace this influence to times before the popularization of Jazz as a true hybrid of African and Western musical idioms. Trade played a major role in exposing other nations to African music. Diaries of early explorers are full of accounts that at times exhibit their biases about a culture they viewed as primitive and inferior to their own.
It is also important to note that some early writers, such as Mc Kinney and Anderson, who acknowledged that "Negroes [African Americans] brought into the country [America] their own flavor of rhythmic genius and harmonic love for color peculiar to their music." The African influence on Jazz, Reggae, Rhythm and Blues, Hip hop, Rap and other popular forms of music that exist in America, Asia, Europe and other continents cannot be discounted. Mc Kinney and Anderson acknowledge the African contributions to indigenous American art forms when they write, ''Africans contributed to the first popular form of amusement indigenous to the American scene was the minstrel show, a distinctly native combination of a sort folk vaudeville with topical songs of a Negroid character." It is within this context that Africa continues to play a major role in reshaping the world music. One of the major African music idioms that have influence world music is captured in Jazz. Mc Kinney and Anderson argue that Jazz is a kind of music fusing elements from such widely differing sources as European harmony, Euro-African melody, and African rhythm into a kind of improvisations style based on a fixed rhythmic foundation. Its beginnings can be traced to the Negro musicians in the French quarters of the city of New Orleans around 1890.**** |
So, what exactly are you saying? That the article that you referenced (link) is invalid as a whole since it too is simply "what some guy wrote"? If so, then why did you reference the article? Rok, the problem in trying to resolve this disagreement is that you are relying on, and disputing, only what is being said with words. You are not listening to what the music itself is saying; you are not letting your ears give you "the proof". You insist on equating "influence" with "creation"; they are two different but related things. I am going to be blunt and I mean no disrespect: it's amazing that someone who loves music so much can be so closed to understanding the building blocks of music; and how much there is to understand. The connection (the influence) between the different musics is there to be heard; it's loud and clear. THAT'S the proof. I'll give you a concrete example (you want proof?):
The fifth track on the record that we are commenting on (and the first of "my three") "Fiesta De La Rumba" starts with a slow 3-2 Rumba Clave rhythm. I will get deeper into the importance of Clave rhythm in Cuban music in my comments about the three tracks, but for now "the proof" lies in the fact that the Clave rhythm originated in Sub-Saharan African music traditions and has the same role in that music as in Cuban music. This is well documented and not really up for debate and all one has to do is LISTEN; but, first one has to know what one is listening to. I suppose that this fact is simply a coincidence in your view? This is the reason that I have repeatedly encouraged you to learn more about this stuff. IMO, you are doing yourself a disservice by holding on to ideas that not only have no basis in fact, but are contrary to those of every authority on the subject.
****Don't shortchange the people of the US and Cuba****
Why are you so invested in shortchanging the people of Africa? |
#5 "La Fiesta De La Rumba" Slow tempo "Guanguanco". Guaguanco is the most popular style of Cuban rumba. It developed among the different African ethnic groups, primarily from Central and West Africa, who were brought to Cuba as slaves. This recording starts with a 3-2 rumba clave rhythmic pattern played on the claves. This merits an explanation: clave is the name of an important percussion instrument used in Cuban music; two thick rosewood sticks struck together. Clave is also the name of the most important rhythmic pattern in Cuban music; usually (but not always) played on claves (the instrument). The importance of clave rhythm in Cuban music cannot be overemphasized. It is a type of repetitive rhythmic grid or framework around which all the other percussion instruments synchronize their individual parts. There are different Clave rhythms, but this one, the 3-2 rumba Clave is one of the most common. But, what is rumba Clave? Do this simple exercise and this common rhythm will be instantly identifiable to anyone familiar with Latin music. First do the exercise very very slowly by enunciating the beats and subdivisions, and then try doing the same thing by clapping your hands where there is an emphasis while enunciating the beats and subdivisions: Think four beats per measure of music: (1) (2) (3) (4). Now, imagine that each one of those beats is divided into four subdivisions: (1)one, two, three, four (2)one, two, three, four (3)one, two, three, four (4)one, two, three, four Now, do the same thing, but this time each of the four subdivisions of each beat may or may not be emphasized: (1) ONE, two, three, FOUR (2) one, two, three, FOUR (3) one, two, THREE, four (4) ONE, two, three, four Remember, the digit is the one of the four beats in the measure and the spelled number is each of the subdivisions in each beat. Listen to the clave (the instrument) in the song "La Fiesta De La Rumba" and focus on the rhythm that it plays; it is the very first thing that one hears on the clip. This (Clave rhythm) is the heart of Cuban music, around which everything else revolves. I made a comment in an earlier post that, in Cuban music, the dance is almost inextricable from the music. There could not be a better example of this than in Guaguanco. This is Guaguanco (the dance) along with the music. As with almost all ethnic musics (African) the dance tells a story. In this case it is suggestive and playful story of sexual conquest; or, more specifically it's attempt (the dude never gets the prize): https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=m-9JLuvoSPI |
#6 "Los Sitio Asere". Classic Cuban "son"; this one, while technically not a Guaguanco, speaks of it in it's lyrics. Son, the precursor of salsa, became popular in the late twenties and combines the more formal elements of Spanish (European) song ("cancion") structures with African percussion instruments and rhythms. Notable is the extensive use of the guitar. The use of brass instruments in this heavily orchestrated example of son came later, whereas early son did not use brass instruments to this extent; except perhaps a single solo trumpet as is heard on the "Buena Vista" recordings.
Classic son uses a more traditional song writing style as opposed to the simpler call and response structure heard in the Guaguanco "La Fiesta De La Rumba". One of the most fascinating things about this style of music and it's rhythm is just how little is happening on the downbeats of the music (the 1,2,3,4). The percussion plays primarily on syncopated beats with the downbeats being largely implied. |
I have a somewhat different take on the reason that KOB is so great. No doubt, KOB helped usher in modal jazz, but first of all it is neither Miles' most important record nor his best. I have always felt that one of the main things that made KOB such an important and popular recording is that it is so ACCESSIBLE. Who can argue with its wonderful relaxed grooves, catchy but extremely simple melodies and fantastic playing? It has probably introduced more listeners (certainly audiophiles) to jazz than any other record. It is, no doubt, a great record; but, while I would never call it overrated, I think that there are many "better" jazz recordings. Fred Kaplan (the author of the article) tries very hard to portray "modal jazz" as a revolutionary movement within jazz that presented players with new challenges. It was, and it did; in a way. Unfortunately, he also implies that the more traditional chord-based improvisation was (is) somewhat less of a challenge for players. The suggestion that "being able to flollow the tune" within a traditional chord-based tune is somehow an indication of an "easier" or less sophisticated vehicle is absurd. The whole truth is that modal jazz is, in most respects, an infinitely simpler framework for jazz players to work within with it's infrequent harmony changes and repetitiveness. Sure, that kind of framework presents it's own challenges to improvisatory creativity, and it is also true that the frequently moving (changing) harmony of a traditional song structure can, in a way, be used by the player as a "crutch" since it does, in fact, "take you by the hand". However, to instantaneously create an interesting and dynamic melody, and without resorting to cliches, within the framework of complex harmonic changes is an infinitely greater challenge than what most of modal jazz presents the player. KOB is a great record; like a perfect hamburger. Aged sirloin, anyone?: https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=kufiFzdrX-0 |
Rok, in the interest of civility, I will end the nonsense in this discussion by leaving you with this (arrogant) little nugget which will hopefully highlight the differences in attitude and approach to all this. From my vantage point, one is positive and forward looking while the other is negative, cynical and adds little of substance:
As has already been pointed out this all began (this time round) with the Kaplan article. I expressed my disagreement with some of the points he made (one in particular) and you went on to bash the guy and call him a farce without a single specific substantive point of disagreement and only blanket condemnation. I pointed out that KOB has probably introduced. more audiophiles to jazz than anything else. You then take that comment as an opportunity to bash audiophiles. Gee, I thought it was a positive that audiophiles might be exposed to jazz. Importantly, in all the subsequent audiophile-bashing in this discussion, not once was the other reason that KOB has become an audiophile fave mentioned: it sounds so darn good (as well as being fairly accessible and good jazz).
Then the attempts at comparing KOB to SE began; a good and potentially interesting exercise. I made it very clear that I consider BOTH records to be excellent and described with some (believe me, there is far far more) detail why, in some ways, I consider one to be better than the other. What could possibly be more evenhanded than that? You disagreed with some of my specific disagreements; fine, no problem. However, all you can offer is more audiophile bashing and simple "I like it better". That's fine too, but in the process you dismiss logic and the irrefutable. As I have pointed out there is a lot of nuance involved in all this and to undertand it makes one a better judge of not only the music, but of ulterior motives one may have for insisting on keeping oneself in one "camp" or another.
Cheers, and my fee is always negotiable :-) |
I hope that this thread can be more than a popularity contest in the sense that disagreement can be respected and, ideally, used as an opportunity to understand different points of view and, in the process, perhaps expand one's point of reference. I think that the thread has, at times, fallen woefully short in that respect with vigorous and positive dialogue happening only when there IS agreement. Personally, I am not looking for agreement; how long can the appeal of that last. I am looking to be challenged in a substantive way. Emotions and emotional attachment to an artist or recording can sometimes hinder the, at least partial, objectivity that can justify proclamations of "best" or "worst" without the appropriate qualifier of "for me". Having said all that, I will practice what I just preached re Salvant. I don't quite get the furor. I will plagiarize the first "comment" to the clip: **** anthony jackson 4 weeks ago · Shared publicly There is nothing remotely original about her style. It seems to be a pastiche of Sarah Vaughn, Billie Holliday and Ella Fitzgerald . All in the same song . Not that its a bad thing at all, just distracting .**** Why, when one can have this: https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=qNi6M_A9AzUJust one @&£man's opinion. |
Rok, "the major problem" is one of personality. Here we at the same tiresome place again where you fail to see the hypocracy in your attitude and contradictions and lack of clarity in what you write. You often disagree and do so in an abrasive and condescending manner; yet, when "some people" disagree with you it becomes "nitpicking", you "meant" this or that, or you go to the fall-back position of audiophile bashing which is really sophomoric in its attempt at superiority, says little and begs the question: if you have such disdain for audiophiles, why do you post in an audiophile forum? I am often reminded of issues around child-rearing: they get the most obstinate and scream the loudest with those who they know, deep inside, are correct.
Classic Rok contradiction:
Your recent Bolero example where you accuse me of nitpicking and neglecting to understand that the musically mediocre Bolero that you posted was meant to be appreciated with the visual (the dance). Yet, this is what you wrote a mere few days ago:
****10-01-14: Rok2id
Southern Comfort-- I am always suspicious of music that "requires" visuals to make it seem complete. The wife likes it, but she likes recordings of birds and waves. :)****
I find it a bit humorous that you would think "some people" are looking for validation in a forum like this or consider their word to be "gospel". What was that term you used recently?.....oh yeah, "projection". I am flattered that you are so affected by my occasional disagreement, but all I can do is encourage you to be more secure in your beliefs.
Cheers |
Schubert, Quebec ("qeeubek") sounds good indeed! Big, breathy tone and sounds fabulous on ballads; I really like his style. A little known factoid about him is that he was an uncredited arranger on a lot of Blue Note sessions (that he didn't play on). |
O-10, Rahsaan was a genius. Unfortunately, playing two or three instruments simultaneously was perceived as gimmicky by some. That clip demonstrates that he was a virtuoso instrumentalist by any standard; double and triple tonguing, circular breathing and command of the extreme ranges of the instrument. He had it all while still projecting a "let it all hang out" musical attitude. An extraordinary performance. Thanks! |
Sad news this week. Buddy DeFranco passed away at the age of 91 this past Wednesday. A fantastic player he was the first clarinetist, and certainly more than anyone, to convincingly take the clarinet out of the "swing" mold and into bebop. https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=LmxHbHrpNHA |
You are correct, Quincy Jones is awesome and an amazing talent. Great orchestrator, composer and band leader/conductor. Great examples of this are Sinatra's "Live At The Sands", his work with the Basie band and movie scores like "The Pawnbroker" among many other accomplishments; not to mention something like 25 (?!?!) Grammy's. My undertaning is that he was also a pretty good trumpet player. ****"Among his awards, Jones was named by Time Magazine as one of the most influential jazz musicians of the 20th century."**** I would have to agree, but with a caveat. He was definitely a jazz musician and he was one of the most influential musicians of the 20th century; but, his greatest influence was not in jazz. Quincy's greatest talent and influence (and not to take anything away from all his other talents) was as a producer; particularly in the r&b genre. As a r&b producer he probably has no equal. His work on his own and Michael Jackson's (among others) records was pretty amazing if you are into that kind of stuff (I like it). He brings an accomplished jazz musicinan's sensibility to the r&b table which combined with a masterful understanding of what is technically possible in a recording studio yielded results which are pretty amazing. I really like "The Dude". I also like "Sounds,,,,and Stuff Like That". One of my favorite cuts on that one is Herbie Hancocks' "Tell Me A Bedtime Story" on which he takes Herbie's improvised solo and multitracks the transcribed piano solo with a violin "section" (one player). His use of voices and horns to create textures is amazing. I particularly like how he uses the rhythmic handclaps as practically the only changing, and tension building, aspect of the music which, with the exception of Herbies's solo, is pretty repetitive. First it's one handclap per measure, then on two and four, then on every beat, then on upbeats and downbeats. It's kind of a cliche, but he truly uses the studio as his instrument. If you like that kind of slick studio sensibility, it's great stuff. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=utuIBp-YwSc |
A quote attributed to several different famous musicians, whoever it was who really said "there's only two kinds of music: good and bad" first was exactly right. I liked every one of the clips. Regardless of genre, honesty is the key; second even to execution. Even so, when the honesty part is not always obvious, if the execution is on such a high level, the music is good. I think George Benson is probably second only to Herbie Hancock in being able to bring such a high level or execution (jazz player sensibility) and honesty to the "pop" table that the results are great. Great guitar, great singer, great production values in that slick 70's kind of way. Same for Manhattan Transfer, but in a more (sorry) "white" kind of way.
Mars/Venus time. Mahalia and Pops: simple (in the good sense), uncluttered and from the heart; what can be said about perfection in a particular genre?
Thanks for the clips. |
Re bullshit and critics:
This has been an issue since time immemorial. It is the way it is and the way it will always be; as soon as someone is given a pulpit, personal agendas and politics of one sort or another will step in. However, there are some good critics that can offer solid guidance; and, more importantly and as with most things, it's up to the public that wants to make educated choices to educate itself and not rely only on what a "critic" says is good. Once again, THAT is the reason to learn more about the building blocks of music.
****But what I find some times in jazz is that you’ll find somebody can get up there and frankly, because I know my training as a musician, I know they’re completely bullshitting.****- McBride
It always comes back to that; assuming the listener wants to base his opinions on something other than gut or emotional reaction. Nothing inherently wrong with that approach, but it depends on how deeply the listener wants to dig"
IMO, a "danger" even bigger than the influence that a clueless critic who promotes bullshit might have is the danger of worthy music that is honestly and creatively pushing the envelope might be dismissed as bs or just noise. So to answer your question, no, not all free or avantgard Jazz is bs. There are a lot of good examples of free music that sticks to the rule of thumb that first a player needs to be able to play "inside" before he can play "outside. THAT is what McBride was saying. |
O-10, great to see you back on the thread. As "second in command" :-) I would like to share a couple general observations about the direction of the thread which relate to some of your recent comments:
I find it interesting how we (I certainly include myself) sometimes tend to read into comments what we want or expect to see in the words of others; this, based on our own biases and expectations. Human nature. Personally, in spite of my own strong opinions, I try to not get too frazzled by commentary that may seem off the mark or even ridiculous to me. I try, with various amounts of success, to use it as an opportunity to challenge, have deeper dialogue and possibly learn something in the process. Sometimes it works; sometimes not.
This thread has existed for some time now and without digging too deeply into the specifics of its history, I think it is fair to say that one of the "controversies" has been the issue of the state of jazz and wether there is relevant new jazz being played/recorded today; or, wether good jazz is simply and only a thing of the past. To me there is no question that that answer is an unequivocal YES, jazz is alive and well. It has evolved as it always will and to try to keep it in the past is not only pointless, but goes counter to the spirit of the music. It merits the ungoing support of the listener. Case in point:
I recently posted a clip by an impressive young piano player. Some liked it some didn't; as expected. No one suggested that this young piano player was the end-all, nor that everyone should run out and buy his recordings instead of those of Peterson, Tatum or whoever. Simply, that here we have yet another example of a promising young player who may and will probably grow into something truly special. Jazz is still here and here to stay. Importanlty, I am glad to see a "softening" of the hard-line stance which was often expressed by the die-hards early in the history of the thread that there is nothing new of value happening today. For me, the constant, pointless, and unwarranted negativity about the state of jazz is tiresome, counterproductive and, ironically, damaging to the health of the music. The greats of this music and their greatness don't need to be protected from the impact of new music that may not comform to our individual idea of the perfect jazz; especially when the complaining is not accompanied by a solid suggestion of a "solution". Imo, it's far more productive to support the kind of environment where creativity is not stifled and simply let the cream rise to the top. |
Some thoughts on recent posts:
It always comes back to those famous and simple words "There's only two kinds of music, good and bad". It is true that a good jazz musician has something special in the ability to improvise, and it is also USUALLY true that to be a great artist one has to "have it"; to be born with, at least, with the seed of a special gift. However, this reality applies not only to jazz musicians but to musicians in any genre. Yes, the great improviser has something unique that the classical musician doesn't (although, as Schubert points out, some Classical musicians improvise); but, the great Classical musician brings certain things to the table that the great Jazz player doesn't have. In that regard, other than wether it is a preferred genre for a particular listener or not, no genre is any more special than another. Moreover, anyone who thinks that to achieve the level of proficiency required to be an artist in ALL genres including jazz, doesn't require a tremendous amount of practice and study (formal or otherwise) is mistaken. Sure, there is the occasional rare exception of the player that appears to never have done so, but they undoubtedly did at some point.
Re old/new: As Acmnan3 said, we go around in circles. Actually, more accurately, some just spin their wheels staying in the past without exploring more of what current jazz as to offer. Too bad. |
Rok, with all due respect you could not be more mistaken in both your assertions and your assumptions. No one has suggested that classical music is better than jazz. Both are serious music and each demands different disciplines. The truth is that classical puts a level of technical demands on the player that jazz does not. Even Wynton, accomplished as he is, would not be able to consistently do what the principal trumpet in a major symphony orchestra is required to do. Likewise, Duke playing Scriabin wouldn't sound any more credible than most orchestras playing Mingus. In your eagerness to run to the defense of jazz you fail to see what one of the beauties of jazz is: the fact that great music can be made by a player with RELATIVELY limited (by classical music standards) command of their instrument. It is a music that not only allows a less structured approach to playing, but in some ways requires it. It is not harder to play jazz than to play classical. You obviously don't know just how hard it is (to use one example) to play one single note perfectly in tune and control it all the way from a whisper to a roar. Improvising at a high level is also very difficult and to compare the two disciplines in an attempt to proclaim one to be "better" is silly and, frankly, sophomoric.
Once again, one of the many reasons why learning a little more about music is extremely valuable. Nothing wrong with simply enjoying it and relying on what one likes best, but once assertions l like that are made some facts to back them up are needed. |
Well, I think it's unfortunate that you consider it pointless. If by pointless you mean that there is not going to be concensus, then you are probably correct. However, I am not debating; I, (and Learsfool) am trying offer a musician's perspective, and one that we know to be the truth. So, I would hope that, given the fact that we are talking about music, there is some value for some in, at least, learning a little bit about that perspective. Perhaps that is of no value to some.
****There isn't much in regard to music that's not "subjective";****
I am glad to see that there has been a bit of "softening" of your stance. It used to be that you used to say that music was purely subjective, or that there was nothing that was subjective; that there is no right or wrong. That is simply not true. Even in jazz, where there is much more latitude allowed for expression and individuality there is often a right and wrong:
- a wrong note in a solo is still a wrong note. How does one know it is a wrong note as opposed to the players choice? The more one understands the rudiments the more it becomes obvious.
- out of tune is wrong. How does one know it is as opposed to a players choice of "color"? Listen to the piano behind the player; it doesn't lie.
- the tenor and trumpet not being together when the "head" is wrong.
I could go on and there is just as long a list (probably longer) for classical.
IMO, knowledge is always a good thing. I believe that some listeners have a predisposition to feel that knowledge will detract from the emotional experience. I suppose we then get into the issue of personality types, but that concern clearly does not apply to all. And none of this impacts on an individual's preferences.
I still want to know about Pannonica :-) |
That's not quite what O-10 said:
***When a jazz artist is recognized and acknowledged by jazz aficionados, that's one thing, but when a jazz artist is recognized and acknowledged by the general public, that's an affirmation of his greatness; such was the case with Horace Silver, Lee Morgan, and Bobby Timmons.***
O-10, I am a little confused by that comment. Explain when and how "the general public" acknowledged any of the players you mentioned. I think that those who acknowledge(d) them are, by definition, "aficionados". I think that the general public, with the exception of players like Gets, Brubeck and a handful others who had jazz "hits" or were of extremely high profile like Miles would sadly not know (or have known) Silver or Timmons from Adam. What am I missing? |
****I was going by the recording date. 2010. Surely you and the OP cannot be critical of anything recorded that recent.****
Focus, people, focus!!!! :-)
This is one of those times when I wonder wether we are just spinning our wheels without focus. The issue is not the recording date, but the music's style that defines what era we are talking about. I think that this may explain some of the disagreement about some of the players we talk about. The Wynton clip is a fine study of this; at least from the standpoint that I'm coming from. This is not meant as yet more Wynton bashing since a player that accomplished can't be bashed; but, we talk about the very best of the genre on this thread. Wynton is an incredibly versatile musician and fabulous trumpet player (two different things), he can play modern and traditional jazz, and Classical. He does it all well with the kind of trumpet skill that is almost unheard of. But, I listen to that clip of "Sweet Georgia Brown" and I hear along with Wynton two players (Vignola and O'Connor) who have made that style of traditional jazz ("hot jazz") their thing and their thing only. They don't (can't) play modern or Classical. They have lived and breathed that idiom and understand the language in a very deep way. I guess I don't have to say whose solos are the most coherent and idiomatic. The most obvious way to tell is always by imaging that we didn't hear the "head" (tune) at the top, that there is no rhythm section playing and one is just hearing the solo, then ask yourself the question: would I still be able to tell what tune they are soloing over? Can we follow the tune? Wynton sounds impressive as hell, but he can't help but resort to some pyrotechnics and playing around with the time in a way that is not idiomatic. Vignola and O'Connor (especially Vignola) are inventive and very idiomatic.
Great clip, fun, great feel, great playing all the way around; but...... |
All niceties aside, and with all due respect, Rok, when it comes to the "guys" that you refer to, you don't know what you are talking about. Those guys did not start off in jazz-rock. They started off as obsessive students of Coltrane and built on that legacy. They are serious jazz players, NYC legends and heros of the tenor saxophone world. Nobody said anything about being a seminal figure. And, please, don't be so darn predictable. I challenge one of your premises (the "popular" thingy) and you lash out with irrationality. If you would just chill for a moment you might learn something about the lineage of an instrument that can fairly be said is the only wind just instrument in "fusion" and practically defined the sound of an entire genre. We are supposed to be lookjng at the decade "in detail"; remember? Wiki? Are you f¿£®¢g kidding me? How about letting your ears tell you what a player is about. If you can't hear that Liebman is the direct descendant of Trane, or if you can't hear the brilliance of his solo with Elvin, what can I say. Re attire: c'mon man, of course it matters. But, again, if you have to resort to cheap shots like that and miss the forest for the trees, not to mention the substance of my comments, then these discussions really are pointless. I am willing to try and perhaps even "lead", but as I said previously, I think we need to dig little deeper; or endure yet more clips of Wynton and Clapton.
Cheers. |
1. Who said that? As I said to O-10, the discussion was supposed to be about the 70s.
2. Get your facts straight. Those guys never played in "pop" bands.
3. Body of work? What about it? Those guys are extremely well recorded and have significant discographies. And how convoluted, self-serving, and ironic: you decide exactly what jazz is, where it starts and ends, and then dismiss the contributions of players who don't fit YOUR mold as not being contributions at all. C'mon man, do you want to have a dialogue or not, because this kind of bullshit gets really old.
4. The «general public knows best» "thingy". Don't play dumb.
5. Not a chance in hell.
And please no more smoke screens, nobody has mentioned NB's. Well, actually, interestingly, it was you who mentioned it when you said you could detect no structure in Black Market. Of course there is structure in BM; but, typically, you blame the music instead of your inability to hear it.
Cheers and here's hoping for more substantive dialogue. |
Rok, do you even know what it means to "copy note for note"? Obviously not. You have no idea what you are talking about because they clearly are not. I dont enjoy calling you out on on this stuff, but frankly you come across as a jerk with comments pretending to be substantive. I know, I know, but comes a time when things need to be said. What is the point of your ridiculous comparisons? Look, are you interested in learning about this stuff, this decade and its music and players or not? Did you listen to the McCoy/Brecker, or to the recordings in the article that you yourself posted? You are so predisposed to believing that nothing besides what you like is of value that you lose sight of what the thrust of the discussion is. Notice that no one else is, likewise, saying that their favorite music is the only one of value. It's simply too difficult to deal with your idiotic an sophomoric stances. So, tell you what, you're right, we are all idiots. There. If you change your mind and decide that you want to move beyond your very narrow sphere of understanding, let me know. As I pointed out before and to paraphrase Acman3, it's those that pretend to want to save it that end up destroying it.
Cheers (I think) |
O-10, thanks for weighing in and for bringing some calm to the proceedings.
Alexatpos, my view of music is far from academic; I beg to differ with your assessment. Much is said and done about keeping music in the realm of "can I FEEL it?" If that is as far as the listener's sensibilities go, that is a very simplistic and musically immature attitude and criterion for judging music; if judging must be done (Rok). Some music challenges the listener with sounds and "feelings" that he has never experienced before, and if the listener is willing to not be quick to dismiss it because he does not understand it, then the listener has an opportunity to grow; it's that simple. You are new to this thread and may not be aware of the fact that this "argument" has been a recurring theme on this thread. Question: I suggest there is good music of every decade and style, yes, including fusion. Now, Rok comes along, as he often does, and insists that it is simply noise, they are noise makers etc, that there is nothing good about the genre "fusion". Multiple attempts are made, with examples of worthy music, to show the other side of the coin. He insists it is noise (There was even a time when Rok insisted, probably still would, that Igor Stravinsky composed nothing but noise !?) So, tell me, just who is it that "continues to argue"?
As I said before, if I am going to participate here, I need clarity. As far as I am concerned there is no room for personal agendas. If it is also a personal agenda to insist on pointing out the obvious, that jazz is an ever evolving art form and that there is ALWAYS (every era) good music, different perhaps, and that all art is like a living thing: it reflects the human spirit in whatever era that spirit exists, then I suppose I am guilty of having a personal agenda as well. Additionally, it is not the responsibility of the art and artist only to make sure that the listener can understand or appreciate it (to like it is an entirely different matter), the listener has an opportunity (some would say responsibility) to grow during the process of learning to understand it IF HE SO CHOOSES; an important "if". But if the listener doesn't want to, or finds it too difficult, that does not give him the credibility to call it noise.
I hope that wasn't too "academic" for you.
Regards. |
Rok, now that O-10 has weighed in and, as you like to say, restored order, I feel better about moving forward. So, the discussion will be (wether you like it or not) about more than just "fusion"; whatever that is. Further, it should be pointed out that by "whatever that is" I simply mean to suggest the futility and pointlessness of trying to put a strict label on music of this era (any era really). That is something that I truly do hope you learn to appreciate as you grow as a listener; that labels are, more than anything, a hindrance. Your rigid definition of the music is certainly a hindrance to having a dialogue. The other aspect of the difficulty of having a dialogue with you is of a more personal nature and has been discussed before: you refuse to understand that there is no difference between telling someone who is saying: "hey, check this out, this is interesting music" that the music is just noise or by noise makers, and calling him a jerk. But, hey, as I have said before, shrink is above my paygrade. So, more than fusion will be discussed, and since that has been settled I feel free to humor you and address your questions and comments re "fusion". What is "fusion"? Well, to my way of thinking the answer could not be more obvious; but, hey, let's state the obvious anyway, for Rok's sake. "Fusion" is a fusion, a marriage, of two or more styles of music. As I said, that should be obvious; and, as O-10 correctly pointed out, that fusion can be of a wide variety of styles. However, part of the con-fusion is due to the fact that while "fusion" is a generic term, it has come to mean, in the mind of most listeners and because of industry labeling, a fusion of jazz and rock. Sticking point: as with any art, music and the fusion of various styles can, and usually does, happen slowly. A jazz artist might release an album that has subtle elements of rock that may not be obvious, and this is simply an indication of the evolving nature of his music. The before-mentioned Joe Henderson is a good example of this. So, what are the obvious signs that a jazz artist is fusing rock into his jazz background, or that a rock artist is bringing jazz into his "recipe": The most obvious almost doesn't need to be mentioned. Jazz-rock fusion almost always uses electric instruments in the rhythm section; as rock does. A key aspect of the playing style has to do with with rhythm; rock "swings" in a different way than jazz does. Tap your foot to a rhythm, any tempo; those are downbeats, usually (but not always) four to a measure. Now, think about the obvious relationship between music and math. Each one of those "beats" can be, and is, divided in time into portions of the amount of time that it takes to go from one beat to the next; subdivisions. The most important and obvious subdivision is what is generally called the "upbeat". The upbeat in rock is often the subdivision exactly halfway between any two downbeats. Again, tap your foot: 1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4 etc. Now think about a high-hat cymbal on the upbeat exactly half way between the beats; that's your most basic rock beat. In jazz that upbeat is not placed half way between; instead it is placed closer to the following beat. This is what gives jazz that "swing" feel. Think: TAT...taTA, TAT...taTA, TAT...taTA. Difficult to put into words, but hopefully you get the point. That's some of the "academic" stuff, I hope it's of some value to someone, and I assure all its just scratching the surface. Now, there is a truism in art that says that what most determines what is good and not so good is how well the art reflects the time of its birth; wether we like what it says about the time is a different matter. That is at the core of the pointlessness of a comparison between Bird playing Donna Lee and a bunch of "fusion guys" playing Donna Lee; proves nothing of value and is an absurd comparison. Would it not be of infinitely more value to accept the fact that there is creativity taking place in any decade and any style? I don't think Rok has any idea how ridiculous Bird would sound playing something like this (and not for lack of trying): https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=qM-gSeBjKk8Or Trane playing something like this: https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=ZPoT0thwduoOh yeah, a small detail, that same "fusion guy" could also play like this: https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=UQx96DsZXxAThe point? One listener's musical universe does not define everyone else's. And an attempt to do so, because of our need to justify our own likes, biases and narrowmindedness by denigrating someone else's wider scope is, well...everyone has to decide for themselves just what that is. As the OP generously likes to say, enjoy the music. |
Mapman, no need to qualify your comments, they are well thought out and mostly true. But, it must be remembered that at some point the Standards of an era are supplanted by those of a new era; a new era with a new crop of players with different sensibilities, many of who are carving out new styles and establishing new "standards"; not of specific songs , but standards of the WAY to play the new style. IOW, there are many jazz aficionados who feel that Coltrane playing "In A Sentimental Mood" (one of the greatest "standards") doesn't hold a candle to Paul Gonsalves (Ellington) playing it. Does that make Coltrane "less" of a player? A noise maker? |
