****After Julie Andrews and John Coltrane, what can anyone add?****
"Nice enough"? Well, I guess I need to throw out about half my jazz records. After all, what can anyone add to Gershwin's operatic version of "Summertime" , or "Scrapple From The Apple" after Bird did it? Oh yeah, and all my versions of "St. James Infirmary" and keep only Pops'. And don't you forget to throw out all except one version of Beethoven's 9th. C'mon man, that is brilliant and highly original piano playing. First of all, Julie Andrews' version is not jazz, not to mention its a vocal version; apples and oranges. Coltrane's version, as good as it is, became a "hit" in great part due to the novelty factor. What Mehldau does with that tune is absolutely astounding and original. Brilliant player. |
As you may all recall I previously encouraged Rok to step away from the spiked eggnog; I guess he didn't listen. |
Happy New Year to all!
Rok, I think you missed the sarcasm in my previous post. It comes down to the first sentence in the last paragraph of that post: "Jazz is different things to different folks". Since its a new year and a new year is a time for resolutions, I resolve to be more direct in my postings 😊. One of the things that I appreciate about what jazz is to you is that you like jazz that is fairly straightforward and stays fairly close to an obvious blues-based structure (as I have pointed out before, most of what you post is twelve-bar blues), uses fairly traditional instruments and and is not very complex compositionally or improvisationally. Jazz is much more than that.
"Hyperbole"? No way. From a technical standpoint alone what Mehldau does is pretty astounding. "Filler"? From an artistic standpoint, what you consider filler is development. Again, no way; IF one gets beyond the "unwashed" mentality (and limitations). After all, what does the fact that the unwashed happen to know Julie Andrews and ONE Colrane performance prove? I hope you are not suggesting that because Coltrane's "MFT" is recognized by a few, that in the scheme of Coltrane's overall contribution, that it is more important than, say, "Giant Steps". It isn't.
As I said, different things to different folks; and tastes do mature. Just remember, and in keeping with my New Year's resolution, the first time I posted something by the great Phil Woods, the only thing that you could say about him was "he has a big stomach" 😉.
|
jzzmusician, words cannot express how significant, and a surprise, it was watching "The Drummer". The drummer in "The Drummer" is none other than Dave Ratajczek, an old friend and colleague. Our career paths took us in very different directions and as a result I would see Dave about once every year or two and I am sorry that I was not aware of the video's existence. I am far more sorry to report that Dave passed away a mere few months ago leaving behind a beautiful family. The last time I saw Dave was on a performance with the NY Phil of Bernstein's "Symphonic Dances From West Side Story" only three weeks before he passed; he was playing set. The first time was on the Broadway show "City Of Angels" which gave birth to the infamous Rat/Fink rhythm section pairing of Dave and David Fink on bass; they were very in demand as a pair and had a special synergy together. Dave was known for being a very sensitive drummer and especially liked by vocalists for his touch and because he never played too loud. He could play any style at the highest level.
The video is very accurate in portraying what a working drummer trying to make it in NYC is like; a tough thing. It is very indicative of what Dave probably went through coming up in the scene. It should be pointed out that Dave achieved a great deal of success and was very in demand, although the weird gigs, as you know, never disappear entirely. Killer drummer, great guy (and pretty good actor; news to me) . Thanks for posting this. |
****Can a solo performer compete at creating musical emotion and expression cpmpared to a group?****
Of course it can. Apples and oranges. Is Horowits playing a Beethoven piano sonata less capable of musical and expression than the Berlin Phil playing "Eroica"? Is it lesser music? Of course not. The symphony may be on a grander scale, but is the sonata lesser music? In fact, the solo artist in jazz or classical faces a bigger challenge; that is one of the things that makes Mehldau's performance so amazing. |
Some people prefer restaurants where the portions are big; everything else is secondary.
|
I would only add that we should always be careful about assuming that because something is virtuosic that it doesn't also have as much of the finer points (musicality, expression etc) than something that is not virtuosic; and vice versa. |
|
jzzmusician, a Classical harpist friend introduced me to Edmar Castaneda a while ago. She thinks he is fantastic; as do I. Trombone and harp, no reed, no piano and no bass; now, there's a combination that will drive Rok back to the eggnog 😛. Wonderful trombonist too. Thanks.
|
|
A Tombonist, a Harpist and a Drummer walk into their favorite bar, where they would get together two or three times a week for drinks and to talk shop after their gig.
On this particular night, someone made the comment that teaching music to people isn’t really all that hard; a real challenge would be to teach a bear.
One thing led to another and they decided to do an experiment. They would all go out into the woods, find a bear, teach it, and try to get it to understand music.
Seven days later, they’re all together to discuss the experience.
The trombonist, who has his arm in a sling, is on crutches, and has various bandages, goes first.
"Well," he says, "I went into the woods to find me a bear. And when I found him I began explain the nuts and bolts of music. Well, that bear wanted nothing to do with me and began to slap me around. So I quickly grabbed my trombone, played a blues, and man he became as gentle as a lamb".
The harpist spoke next. He was in a wheelchair, with an arm and both legs in casts, and an IV drip. "Well, I went into the woods and found a bear. I then began to explain the rudiments of harmony to my bear. But that bear wanted nothing to do with me. He took hold of me and we began to wrestle. We wrestled down one hill, up another and another until I managed to make it to my harp and began to play Beethoven. Wouldn’t you know it? The bear calmed down and began to purr".
They both looked down at the drummer, who was lying in a hospital bed. He was in a body cast and traction with IV’s and monitors running in and out of him. He was in bad shape.
The drummer looks up and says, "Looking back on it, explaining that Wynton Marsalis is not the best musician that ever lived may not have been the best way to start."
|
|
|
Great clip, and your point re the politics of it all is well taken; a real shame. To use this musical term again, your post is a perfect "segue" to the Duke Pearson posts (accidental?...I don’t believe in "accidents"). Why a perfect segue? When I went to YouTube to listen to "The Right Touch" the first tune from the record that I listened to was "Scrap Iron": [URL] https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLyLUr7irfgtjwhmQXyJPV7bskqAPS2yei&v=0l-C1TeyeYA[/URL] When I first heard it the first thing that came to mind was: "its a slower tempo *Freddie Freeloader* from Miles’ KOB": [URL] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RPfFhfSuUZ4[/URL] What do the tunes that Pepper plays on the interview/clip (and Freddie Freeloader) have in common? They are modal. KOB, is the acknowledged most important introduction of modal music to jazz. Much has been made on this thread (and everywhere else) about whether KOB deserves all the credit it gets. Believe me it does; there are no accidents. BTW, another reason that your clip is so fascinating to me is that I had never heard Pepper play so "hard" before. I mean the intensity with which he blows into the horn as opposed to the lighter approach of most of his playing on record. Yet another bow to the influence of Cannonball and even Coltrane (KOB)? No accident. |
|
In keeping with my New Years resolution to be more direct, I need to make an observation:
Perhaps unrelated (hopefully) and just a coincidence, but it seems to me that when the discussions here turn to non-music topics, and politics in particular, and there is disagreement some of participants in those non-music discussions disappear for a while. Unfortunate. I am all for discussions of any and all topics remotely related (or not) to music, but perhaps we could all stand to have thicker skins and be big boys (and girls?) and hang tough and secure with our opinions; or simply stay clear of those other topics.
|
motoman, great stuff that clip of the TV show. Always amazing to be reminded that music of that quality was recognized and featured in mass-media at one time.
Alexatpos, thanks for the Hawes clips. Beautiful player with a distinctive rhythmic feel; and a fascinating story. Beautiful brush work by Stan Levy. Thanks. |
|
****At :09 and 2:06 Was there anything amiss there?**** Nothing that is not intentional and musical, if you're hearing what I hear. At .09 (actually, at .10) he just cuts the melody short; varies it, if you will, like many players do. Its all the more obvious with a familiar melody like NIT. Notice how he does the same thing again at .17. It's just his personal interpretation of the melody. It actually makes it interesting and it did what he intended: caught your attention. At 2:06 it sounds like he turns away from the mic a little and when he plays the multiphonic the note doesn't speak right away so his sound seems distant and almost like a mistake or missed note; it's not. Good for you for listening for those nuances. BTW, a multiphonic is when the player sounds more than one note at a time. It's a great sound; very expressive. Classic (and some of the first ) use of multiphonics: [URL] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F54NJdClKPQ[/URL] |
**** but Hentoff, is a well known 'know it all' and all around jerk.**** I have no particular love for Hentoff; but, jerk?. Why? Reading his bio I see a pretty accomplished individual who has done much for the health of jazz. [URL] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Hentoff[/URL] ****it does include some greats, it just could have included so many, more important figures.**** Like who; and, why are they more important? It should be remembered that important artists are busy individuals and not always available for even the most important projects. However, I see a pretty impressive and pretty comprehensive list here. I look forward to your substitutions. And, Rok, what exactly is your beef with NY? Firstly, ask yourself why it is that the majority (obviously not all) of important jazz musicians want and have wanted to go to NY; I assure its not for the bagels. Importantly, do you really think that Wynton would be Wynton as we know him today if NY didn't exist? Honest questions. |
Good post moto_man. Also, let's not forget that some (many?) of our music heroes, as much as we may resist believing this, are divas and prima-donnas (this applies to both sexes) and are very difficult and demanding when it comes to public appearances. Some of them may have wanted too much money, or wanted headliner preferential treatment, or, or,....; have seen it happen many times.
****I am going to state the obvious and say, Everything we Read, See or Hear concerning the arts, is decided by someone for us.****
Rok, I have to point out, once again, the inconsistency in your stance. What happened to your "the great unwashed decide" mantra? |
moto_man, I missed your penultimate paragraph. You covered my points in that paragraph. Again, good post. |
Starting? I've made that comment several times before. That's alright. I understand where the outbursts are coming from; it's all very transparent, really. The shame is that the gratuitous negativity and posturing about everything from the need to "protect" jazz to the role of people like Hentoff is only a lot of chest thumping and accomplishes nothing. That is why I liked moto_man's posts; to the point, but evenhanded and non-judgmental.
|
**** It is the answer to much of the disagreement on this thread.****
No it isn't. Much of the disagreement on this thread is due to a both narrow minded and arrogant mind-set on the part of some that assumes that the ability to analyze intellectually and the visceral experience are mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, instead of aspiring to more knowledge and better understanding which, in turn, enhances the visceral experience, discourse is kept at a sophomoric level. Not to mention any semblance of humility re the level of appreciation that exists. This is a theme that is truly tiresome and has been beaten to death. Perfect, and very recent example of what I refer to:
****Grossman: 'Tunisia"
At :09 and 2:06 Was there anything amiss there?****
++++Nothing that is not intentional and musical, if you're hearing what I hear. At .09 (actually, at .10) he just cuts the melody short; varies it, if you will, like many players do. Its all the more obvious with a familiar melody like NIT. Notice how he does the same thing again at .17. It's just his personal interpretation of the melody. It actually makes it interesting and it did what he intended: caught your attention. At 2:06 it sounds like he turns away from the mic a little and when he plays the multiphonic the note doesn't speak right away so his sound seems distant and almost like a mistake or missed note; it's not. Good for you for listening for those nuances. BTW, a multiphonic is when the player sounds more than one note at a time. It's a great sound; very expressive. ++++
|
|
Uh...., still waiting for the acronym translation 😄 |
O-10, I am not sure I am willing to accept your "challenge" for what I feel should be obvious reasons to anyone who has followed this thread (never mind, participated); reasons that point to futility. However, I admit that I am a sucker for a challenge; and even if I don't accept the challenge I will post some comments on the issue. Will get back to you in a bit; a little busy "equating soul to mathematical terms" right now 😉 |
What do all of these "Who’s Who"- list jazz artists have in common?
Miles Davis
Nina Simone
Tito Puente
Christian McBride
Phil Woods
Michel Camilo
Eliane Elias
Lew Soloff
Hubert Laws
Wynton Marsalis (this is a hint 😉)
Roland Hanna
Eddie Gomez
Andy Laverne
Gary Bartz
Tony Scott
Charlie Palmieri
Freddie Cole
Art Davis
Whoever gets the answer right DOES NOT get the:
** IDKWTFIATA ** award. Additionally, the first person to figure out what the award’s name is an acronym for gets two hours of free saxophone lessons or my copy of Mingus’ "Oh Yeah" (that was another hint ☺️); you pick.
BTW, Laura Jurd fans have nothing to worry about; she is not good enough to be accepted to Juilliard. That clip is up there with the "Trio Tres Bien" clips in the "worst things posted on this thread" list. |
You'll have to do better than that. Very easy to do; just leave out the F word; that was an easy one and we all know what it stands for. Then PM me your address and I will send you "Oh Yeah". You sure you don't want saxophone lessons? 😉
BTW, no way did I get Jurd wrong; mediocre player. You want a quality player in that style? Check out some of Randy Brecker's work. Btw, since when do you care what the press has to say? I thought the great unwashed decided. |
Rok, one thing l'll say for you. You are the model of consistency; consistently inconsistent 🎷 |
Jafant, I received the new Frisell CD just last week. He's one of those players whose recordings I buy unheard. As far as I am concerned he is a genius. I have always loved his music and am particularly fond of his work with Haden and Lovano. His latest is a beautiful CD and features the vocals of Hade's daughter, Petra.
Of course, we all know how rare good new music is 😉 |
Rok, I have never used the term "noise maker" to describe any artist. That is your phrase; and, not only would I never dream of appropriating one of your descriptions, but it would not be appropriate use of the term. You tend to use it to describe music that you don't like or understand; regardless of the level of craft involved. A noise maker is someone who not only is not very good, but is insincere in his/her musical efforts. Your examples are of artists who are probably sincere, I just happen to think their efforts are not at a particularly high level. Misappropriation is just as bad as misrepresentation.
|
O-10, I will not be accepting your "challenge"; sorry. Allow me explain why (although Acman3 pretty much summed it up):
This thread is going on three years and after countless posts of "new music" that the various posters obviously feel are also good music, for you make that challenge can only mean one of three things: 1. The challenge is gratuitous provocation. 2. You have not been paying close enough attention to the posts in your own thread. 3. Your musical palette is so entrenched in the music of the past that nothing will sway you. Ergo, and as I said before: futility.
Please don’t misunderstand, we are all, obviously, free to like or dislike any particular style of music, but this all points to the important backdrop to this "dispute" (as Alexatpos describes it). I will try and describe it once more:
There exist two different mindsets:. One mindset uses one’s favorite style of music as a type of comfort zone. This is music or a genre that is deemed "the best" by a particular listener because he simply likes it or can relate to it for any of a variety of reasons. The other mindset believes in the adage "there are only two kinds of music, good and bad". This adage is genre blind and points out, as moto_man pointed out recently, that we all like certain styles of jazz, that no one style is better than the other, and that the only consideration that is subject to intellectual analysis is the skill level of the performer; THAT is what determines what is good music or bad. My only point of disagreement with moto_man’s excellent observation is in the assumption that everyone can discern skill level. For that there needs to be, at least, an openness of mind to the reality that in order to discern skill level one has to rely on a little more than simply visceral reaction. I am not talking about taking music theory courses, for instance, but simply an openness to the aforementioned idea. Rok recently commented: "the visceral always trumps the intellectual". That is simply not true, and as usual, we want simple answers. Perfect example: Kenny G; wildly successful instrumentalist that evokes a very strong visceral reaction in unsophisticated listeners for doing things like being able to sustain a high note for a long time. The unsophisticated listener thinks that this bit of instrumental trickery must mean that he is a great musician. Obviously, all the participants in this thread are more sophisticated than that, but there are many levels of this sophomoric syndrome.
Personally, I find it ironic, and more than a little pathetic, just how much resistance there is to the idea that at ANY point in time there is, in fact, good music being made; that what determines whether it is good or bad is how well the music reflects the time of its creation along with the skill level of the performer. We should be able to separate our personal generational or social biases and be more open to this idea. No one is saying that we should not have a favorite era in this music, but to be so rigid with our merit-hierarchy is a disservice to the music. I say this is ironic because I don’t know a single musician in any genre that does not feel this same way or is not of the more open-minded attitude.
Rok asked the question: "I don’t understand why you guys think that jazz always has to change". Again, ironic. Ironic that someone who leans so much on the "history" of the music doesn’t see the obvious: Jazz has been evolving since its birth and it will continue to do so whether we like it or not (I think that was what Acman3 meant with his comment about jazz being what is not what was). Again, not to suggest that anyone person should not have a favorite era or even believe that there were high points in the music’s evolution; but, to be blunt, a listener that is not even aware (there’s that intellectual thing again) that the overwhelming majority of music that he refers to or posts as examples is simply twelve bar blues has no basis for making grandiose comments about the superiority of one era over another.
Along with the close minded mindset we often find a tacit implication that the listener who appreciates music that some perceive as leaning toward the "intellectual" (sometimes described as "noisemakers") are not as capable of appreciating music that is more obviously, or more traditionally, "soulful" or visceral. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the close minded individual who is missing the boat. Alexatpos addresses this issue in his recent, and interesting, post. Rok, in his search for affirmation, missed the thrust of Alex’s comment. As I interpret Alex’s post:
First of all, those were not Alex’s words. He was quoting someone else’s comments and then proceeded to make the point that even music that AT ONE TIME was considered "soulless" can be experienced differently at a later time and that he, himself, enjoys music that was considered "soulless" at one time. Alex, please correct me if I misinterpret your post.
Personally, I think that this thread would be far more interesting and positive if there was more openmindedness and more willingness to explore ways to assess skill level. I also find it ironic (more irony 😳) and more than a little silly that some posters feel free to deem this or that music as unworthy because of stylistic considerations and comment that it is "soulless" or not "boss" ("boss"? really?); but, yet, when someone points out that the skill level is not up to par all hell breaks loose. I hope we can do better going forward. Actually, I think we ARE doing better. Who would have thought, three years ago, after all the rants about what a noise maker Stravinsky was, that Rok would refer to "L’Histoire" in one of his comments? There’s hope yet 😊
O-10, re Ray Charles/Bags. Great record. Have had that record since college. I know that you have a monopoly on being able to recognize soul, but that record bit me in the ass many years ago 😉. And, BTW, I will be posting some "new" music soon, but please don’t take that as a response to your challenge. Or, go ahead and do.
Best to all.
|
Tell you what, Rok. I am so convinced that it is the negativity and anger in attitudes like yours that are doing more harm to the music than anything else that I invite you to come to NY and I will take you to places like Juilliard and jazz clubs in the city, as my guest, so you can see, first hand, just how much good music is happening today. This way you don't have to simply imagine what is, or is not, going on. I could even arrange for you to meet your hero Wynton. If you promise to keep the rants to a minimum I may even offer to put you up (futon bed ok?). 😊 I'm dead serious. |
Rok, as usual, you miss the point. You can’t understand just how much agreement there is between Wynton’s "diatribe" and my own; you seem to see only what you want to see. Wynton, in fact, corroborates much of what am saying; I know nuance is difficult. Lastly, don’t forget that Wynton has made an empire from the "preservation of the art"; self interests and all.
|
And here is another big part of the problem. Had someone played this for you and not told you who was playing, I would bet you would relegate them to noise-maker status. But, this is one of Wynton's heroes as he admits in his diatribe. How do you feel about the music with this knowledge in mind? Surprise me. [URL] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7aFKG2c6RIY[/URL] |
Rok, you crack me up. As usual, you see (read) what you want to see and interpret it the way you want to interpret it. I know full well that you will always want the last word; some things will never change. No problem and no hard feelings. Now, wait for it.....this is actually a compliment now.... I believe you will get it one day. Right now, you don't. As far as taking the fun out of it goes, let's see.... who is really taking the fun out of it (and this is the only "premise" that this is all about)? The person who says: "There's great music happening as we speak (write)?" Or, the person who says: "The only good music was made by dead people?" |
Chazro, I am humbled. Beautifully concise, to the point and timely. Thank you for that. |
Miles Davis, Juilliard graduate.
Freddie Hubbard, studied at the Arthur Jordan Conservatory of Music (now the Jordan College of the Arts at Butler University) with Max Woodbury, the principal trumpeter of the Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra.
John Coltrane, studied music at the Granoff Studios as well as the Ornstein School of Music.
Cannonball Adderly, grad in music, Florida A&M University. Held position of band director at Dillard HS. Afterwards moved to NY originally to seek graduate studies at NYC music conservatories.
Sonny Rollins, "So then I had a saxophone teacher, and went to little music schools and stuff like that, not private teachers. But I never had sort of the formal education that my older brother and sister had, so I always felt inferior to them."- SR
Charles Mingus, studied with Herman Reinshagen, principal bassist of the New York Philharmonic, and compositional techniques with Lloyd Reese.
Just a few of the ones you mentioned. Think, Rok, think! 🙃 |
Chazro, that was going to be one of my recs to Jafant eventhough it's a couple of years old, but I wanted the dust to settle. Thanks for bringing it up. Beautiful and very poignant recording with a great lineup that includes Kurt Elling, another great current artist. |
****I've posted this more than once, why have you failed to acknowledge it Frogman?****
Hmmm, let's see...... Busy with work? Maybe lots of other posts came in around the same time and yours fell through the cracks? Maybe I was busy arguing with Rok? Maybe you posted around the time that my dog (Artie) ate my IPad's charger? Or......
O-10, I didn't think that anyone would be taken to task for not acknowledgimg a post. With that in mind, should I point out how many of my posts you never acknowledged? Would be kinda silly and petty, no? BTW, one of those was clips of Carmen Lundy. If you like Charenee Wade I suspect you'll like Lundy; she writes her own material too. Finally, winter weather in NY! About time.
|
Ohnwy61, I used to ask myself that question. For me it's really a lot less about Rok than it might seem to be. I find that there are a lot of mistaken ideas about musicians, their culture and their craft. It's an opportunity to bring a different perspective to issues that come up. From my vantage point, the better we understand musicians the better we can understand, and hopefully appreciate and enjoy their music 💡 |
It boggles the mind how it’s possible for some people to create a reality so detached from what is. Here is what is:
The negativity has consistently come from Rock; and you, O-10. The rub has been (and I can’t believe I have to say this again) the negativity about new jazz and new music in general on the part of Rok. This has been evident from the start of this thread. There has not been a single negative comment on the part of one of the regular posters who like modern jazz about classic jazz in general; nor comment about the superiority of modern jazz and only comments about making room for both. It has consistently been the insistence that classic jazz is "superior", modern jazz is often played by "noise makers" "equating numbers to soul" (whatever the hell that means), "good new music is so rare", "if you want to listen to jazz or classical be prepared to listen to music by dead people", and on and on that has caused the rub. O-10, you do have very ecclectic tastes in music and I respect that, but you have been complicit in the negativity because whenever there is disagreement or conflict you and Rok run to each other for support and form your two man click no matter what conflict there may have been between the two of you originally. Sorry, but some things need to be said. Now, it is true that I have been negative about certain specific examples of music (very few really) that you have posted. I have been very specific about my reasons and they have always had to do with the execution of the music and never blanket criticism of the genre. Of course, you guys don’t seem interested in understanding more about this issue. Rok and you are, of course, free to be highly critical of others' posts; but, that's OK. Right? All this leads me to a comment about your most recent music postings; and those postings are so fitting for my previous comments:
Ok, O-10 seem upset that those clips were ignored. Speaking for myself, the reason is simple, I didn’t want to open yet another can of worms. But if you insist: I will admit that "Smooth Jazz" is not my favorite genre, but I have room for it generally and some of it can be a heck of a lot of fun. But, I find those two examples to not be very good examples of the genre. As much grief as smooth jazz gets from some, the fact is that some smooth jazz artists are terrific musicians and in most ways stick to the spirit of jazz in having a strong sense of spontaneity, improvisation and instrumental ability; not those guys, sorry. I find those two examples to be extremely formulaic and the music sounds as if they stick strictly to a written out or pre-determined template. I would bet you that if you heard them play those tunes live they would sound EXACTLY the same as they do on those clips; not the case with some other musicians in the genre.
Here’s to more mature interaction going forward 🍷 |
I am sincerely disappointed that after all this time I feel reduced to having to ask the question "what the hell is wrong with you?". You want to continue to insist on using some sort of hierarchy of merit dictated by you and your own agenda (and there is clearly a personal agenda at work here), that’s fine go ahead. But, listen closely now...NOT EVERYONE THINKS ABOUT MUSIC AND ITS RELATIVE MERITS THAT WAY. The problem is not whether you, Wynton or anyone else think that this or that player is "better", it is your blanket denigration of any music made after your own personal music time-comfort zone.
Do do you even know why Armstrong was as great as he was, can you even articulate it? And do you have any idea how ridiculous he, in spite of his greatness DURING HIS TIME, would sound playing the type of music that Hubbard played? Even more ridiculous playing the music that someone like Brecker plays? THATS THE POINT. The music changes and moves forward, it will because it has to; something that you are apparently incapable of. To not understand this is to not understand one of the most important elements of music and any art. I had hoped that you were a more insightful music lover than you are showing yourself to be. That is why I bothered.
|
Indeed! And very nice allegory, btw. Brought to mind Plato's "Allegory of the Cave". Regards |
O-10, I have to ask this question:
Your first referred to your "smooth jazz" posts as "good current jazz CDs" and complained that they had been ignored. Now, you refer to them as "formulaic and the jams sound as though they had a cookie cutter for music, and they rolled em off an assembly line or pre-determined template". So, which is it? I'm just looking for clarity, because I also have to ask: if the second description is correct (it is), it begs the question: why did you post them?
A couple of other points about those posts:
****most new jazz is "smooth jazz",****
Not true at all. This is one of the recurring problems here: on what do you base that assertion? One has to be more specific before making a comment like that. Are you talking about recorded music, on the radio, or music in the clubs? There is a tremendous amount of new jazz that is not "smooth jazz" taking place in the clubs, radio, and a heck of a lot that is being recorded. WBGO Jazz88.3 in the NY area is going strong; CD101 (Smooth jazz) went under years ago. More smooth jazz than others being recorded? Maybe, but still a lot of non-smooth jazz being recorded; I can't say I have followed smooth jazz recordings very closely. You refer to the "jams": that is part of what makes those two clips so insipid; there are no jams. There is practically NO inprovisation in those clips. They don't even use a drummer; they're using a drum machine! 😖
Lastly, I don't know what you mean by "different kinds of cool jazz". I thought we were talking about smooth-jazz; one has nothing to do with the other. If you are genuinely interested in my comments you are always welcome to address me directly. Regards. |
Well, THAT was a constructive comment, O-10! Does that mean that you don't want to have discussions? Apparently not. If I am mistaken, tell me what about my previous post is not true. Love Art Farmer, btw. And what, pray tell, would cause you to even consider that I might think that music is too hip or too old considering that at least half of what I have posted here is in that very genre? You do get it right sometimes 😊. Very nice clips! |
****All music is written by humans and all humans are creatures of their time......(etc.)****
Schubert, that was a fantastic post. Nothing else I can add to it. Thanks.
|
O-10, as much as I hate saying things like this, I think that what is really going on here is that you are a bitter and angry person, unnecessarily fueling the flames of our little soap opera; as demonstrated by your last post. Here you go again running to Rok for support on a position that has no merit and that will only serve to be controversial and divisive; not to mention misrepresentative of what has been going on.
I praised your most recent "old jazz" contributions (Farmer) and here you are making blanket statements about my "knocking" your "old jazz" contributions. I make a recommendation to you of a new artist (Lundy) that you might like who is reminiscent of a new artist that you posted, and here you are claiming that I "knocked" your new artist posts. All this, as if there were something wrong with not liking EVERYTHING that you post; especially when I have been very specific as to why I didn’t like certain ones and, incredibly!, as in the case of your "new jazz" example, you later went on to agree with me. It boggles the mind. Worst of all, to somehow suggest that the fact that I have not participated in other threads (!!!) that you have deemed indicative of some "problem" with new music is an example of some sort of inconsistency on my part is absurd. And top of it all, instead of having the courtesy and cojones of addressing me directly about it, you run to your cohort for support. If all this weren’t so pathetically sophomoric and plain stupid there would be no recourse but to call you an a&&. How pathetic.
Obviously, you are not interested in turning a new leaf or, as I have plainly suggested, "having more mature interaction going forward"; too bad.
BTW, if you had bothered to take off your blinders to read what was posted in those "other" threads you would have found that there was overwhelming criticism of the OP’s premise, and in the case of #3 (by our own Acman3) it was a parody of #’s 1&2.
Your last post was either the ultimate troll or an example of a desperate attempt to find validation by someone who apparently feels very little of it. That you are "totally lost" is obvious; I suggest you look for a solution somewhere other than where you are looking.
Once more, here’s to more mature interaction going forward 🍷
|
Just listened to the Clare Fischer "Somewhere..." Wow! More later.
|
