Ellington/Gonsalves: what is there to say? No realer (?) "real deal" than this. Gonsalves was brilliant; as was, of course, The Duke. Classic stuff from an era when this kind of music was, miraculously, a much more important part of the social consciousness. Can you imagine hearing a band like that live? Check this version out: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbjzfZSmQMMObservation: check out who (mostly) in the audience were really digging the music? Answer: the kids. This was probably around 1957-9 and we know what was happening in pop music around then; and how R&R used a lot of these rhythmic grooves. Not sure what I’m saying (no coffe yet); but, just sayin. |
I would like to, first and foremost, commend Rok for his valiant effort at diplomacy. In some ways it would be easy for me to walk away from this thread and not continue to get mired in what is turning out to be contentious and, worse, pathetic on a level that I never thought it would reach. I hope Rok’s advise that we return to the music is heeded. I do find it highly ironic that while there have been many great posts and comments made about music over the last couple of days, it is the thread’s very OP who has ignored them and who seems intent on dragging the thread back into the mud.
I point this out, and make the following comments, not to further participate in the mudslinging but in a last ditch effort to put an end to this nonsense. I have proven it to my satisfaction that I could, as I have done over the last few days, simply ignore O-10 and go about my interaction with other participants; however, I find this approach pathetic itself. I will return to simply ignoring O-10’s provocations if this last ditch effort is not effective and simply see how long I can stand this other, childish, approach. I say this with the full knowledge that it is obvious to me that O-10 is the one who, since he can’t get himself to say the words: "Frogman and Learsfool I want you to leave the thread", is "on a mission" to get us to do just that by making it so distasteful to be here that there is no other alternative. On the other hand there may be something else altogether at work here 😁
****Learsfool, I’ve got nothing else to do, I can play this game all night long.****
Bingo!!!
O-10, this will truly be my last effort to reach out to you to stop the nonsense. As I said previously, I can go back to simply ignoring your snipes and interact with the other participants. I point out the following to clear the air about certain misunderstandings and to, hopefully, help you to see why this contentiousness happens. Consider this an olive branch of sorts; and, from my vantage point I have always offered you olive branches when the going gets rough.
The MAWRON comment (sigh!):
It was you who used the term to describe what you THOUGHT Learsfool and I thought you were. I then quickly pointed out to you that, no, I didn’t think that was what you were (olive branch). Now, allow me to explain how it all started:
You posted a music clip by Previn and stated that you "searched for classical music examples by Previn and this is all that I could find". You followed that comment with the clip of "Like Young". Upon searching Previn on YouTube literally dozens of clips come up; so, what is so outlandish about someone assuming that you thought that the clip was of classical music; especially when that someone proudly proclaims that he knows nothing about classical music. I commented that it was not classical music and that I thought it was "pretty bland stuff" and "no better than what one hears in elevator from Kenny G". That was the point at which, as always, the s&+t hit the fan. This one little "controversy" is a great example of what happens time and time again and it gives many further examples of specific problems with how, from my vantage point, you then go on to distort what actually transpires and how you then insist on keeping the interaction in the mud. I could offer many examples like this, but I will keep it to this one:
1. Re a much later, divisive and negative comment by you: Especially considering how you, yourself, have always been eager to jump in and join dialogue between other members, your comment that I "had no business commenting on" the "Like Young" clip is completely uncalled for and unreasonable. I was under the impression that this is an open forum for anyone to participate in any discussion. The reaction does, however, give insight into a certain mindset.
2. Re a recent comment by you on the idea that I thought "Like Young" sounded like Kenny G. Please pay attention now, this is a KEY POINT and just one of the problems with not having any interest in speaking the language of music and, hence, not understanding nuance in the language so as to be able to make important distinctions: I never said it sounded like Kenny G; I said it was no better than Kenny G. If you can’t understand the difference then I am truly wasting my time, but I will persevere (olive branch).
The above goes to a key problem which is actually twofold:
O-10, you seem to feel that any one artist who you really like is incapable of putting out substandard work simply because much of the other work is good. Whether it be Grant Green, Previn, whoever, if any negative comment is made about a clip by that artist, you react very negatively and defensively. Moreover, and to the second part of the problem, well....I will describe it by way of example:
What, in heaven’s name, does the fact that Ella Fitzgerald recorded a good version of "Like Young" have to do with the fact that Previn’s version sounds like the Muzak (I’m showing my age) one would hear in an elevator? How on earth does the fact that Fitzgerald’s is good make Previn’s any less bad. There is example after example of this kind of, sorry...but there is no other way to describe it....sophomoric view of music.
3. For the record, it WAS Learsfool who I referred to in my comment about the MAWRON word since in O-10’s original comment in which he used that word he addressed Learsfool and I. However, I was clear and deliberate in my later comment in saying "....other esteemed aficionado who I will not involve in this bs" and I also made clear that these were MY opinions. O-10, you then proceeded, in a very nasty move, to suggest that I was speaking for Learsfool. That move alone should have been enough for me to never want to interact with you again. But, alas....(olive branch).
4. O-10, you tend to want to see only what you want to see. Your calls for putting things "up for a vote" is a good example of this:
You go on a tear after I simply said that I liked Mitchell’s solo on a Blackey clip and that I felt it was so good that it alone made that clip my favorite over A COMPETELY DIFFERENT PERFORMANCE in which Donald Byrd soloed. You then go on to assume that I thought Mitchell was a better player than Byrd and wanted to put thigs "up for a vote". I had already made my feelings about the two players clear, Rok was impressively diplomatic about it, and Alex and Acman3 both commented that they preferred Mitchell (sorry guys for having to involve you). Then, days later you still wanted to put it up for a vote! As someone here likes to say, wtf?
5. Sometimes the dust seems to be settling and it seems that we can go back to discussing music, jokes get made, I post a clip of O-10 dancing in the dessert 😉 (olive branch), etc. ; and, here comes O-10 again with some little snide comment stirring up the pot again. Most recently: "obsessed musicians".
6. O-10, let me be clear: I DONT think the "problem" is that you are not interested in learning about music. I am, believe it or not, perfectly ok with that. The problem is that you don’t want to allow others to speak the language of music; not a reasonable expectation. You, yourself, want to be able to critique others’ music choices and use terms with negative connotations like "soulless", "intellectual", "stereotypical jazz" etc., but you don’t want to hear why others feel the way they do about music that you like. Not a reasonable expectation. Please try to recognize how just about every recent post by you is laced with at least one snide or negative comment or insinuation; that approach will achieve nothing positive and will certainly discourage anyone from interacting.
Anyway, I could go on and on with example after example. I hope this diatribe serves some good purpose (olive branch). As I said, it will be my last OF THE SORT....directed specifically at you anyway.
BTW, "The Subterraneans" score I thought is terrific; thanks for that (olive branch). As I said in my comments about "Like Young", Previn is a "terrific musician" (olive branch). One of the most well rounded and versatile in the business. As Learsfool points out, he has also been inconsistent and some of his work is not particularly interesting imo. Yes, he plays good jazz piano, but he is no Kenny Barron. He is a very good film score composer, but he is no Bernard Hermann or Leonard Bernstein. He is a good classical music conductor, but certainly no Carlos Kleiber.
BTW, when I listened to your clip of "The Subterraneans" I noticed that the credits credit Bud Shank for the alto work. When I listened I said to myself that does not sound like Bud Shank it sounds like Art Pepper . I looked into it and the fact is that the alto player was Art Pepper; fyi.
I am now ready to get back to the music.
Everyone have a great weekend!
|
You see, NYC ain't so bad 😄 They are great! Great tune. OK, ok, I'll do it; but the only way I'll marry O-10 is if he promises that our first dance will be to something besides Grant Green. 🙂
|
Acman3, fabulous clips of James Blood; very soulful and funky. The clip with George Adams was a big surprise. I've never heard George Adams play like that before. Great stuff, thanks.
|
|
|
I find it truly incredible how a person can continue to delude himself and continue to accuse others of the very things that he is doing. I really don’t derive any satisfaction by saying or even thinking these things, in fact I find it disturbing; but, sometimes there is no other way of saying it: Either there is some bizarre deliberate plan at work here, or there is some sort of deficiency of mental faculties. THE ISSUE IS NOT THAT THE f$&*#%g tune "Like Young" IS OR SOUNDS LIKE ELEVATOR MUSIC, IT IS THAT PREVIN’S VERSION SOUNDS LIKE ELEVATOR MUSIC. I explained this before and asked what on earth does Ella’s version have to do with Previn’s? How does the fact that Ella’s version is good make Previn’s good as well; or, less bad? Boggles the mind.
Rok, you asked for help in figuring out what is going on here; and, in keeping with my prior promise to not address the OP directly about these things unless he decides to be more reasonable, I am offering my takes only because you asked. Your two questions, why is he doing this, and would he react the way he does if it were you making the comments are connected. This is how I would answer them:
It is no secret that you and I have had our vehement disagreements and "spats" here. I suspect we will butt heads again, but I do think that there is a better understanding between us as of late and I welcome that. But, for me there has always been a very significant difference between your motivation in participation here and the OP’s; it’s really quite simple for me. I have always sensed that for you the love of the music is foremost, I respect that and is why I appreciate the opportunity to interact, share and answer questions, etc.** Imo, for the OP, it is the love of the idea that he loves the music that is foremost and this seems to be an unhealthy part of his persona and identity; and, why he can’t bear the idea that he might be mistaken about something related to the music, that someone else may not like what he likes, or that he doesn’t know nearly as much as he thinks he does about it. It is all about him, "the one and only O-10" to quote him. Or, the holding on to the idea that someone would post a differing idea only because it is in response to HIM. Something very strange going on here; if it weren’t laughable.
I think that your phrase "falling on his own sword" is very appropriate. I think he feels he is losing the control of the thread; control that he wants very much ("My thread"). There have been several other comments made that point to this; most telling, the one about the participants having to make a decision between he and I (!!!!) "if the thread is to continue". As if the life of the thread depended on his participation , or mine! Talk about self-deluded arrogance.
Words to to live by:
****Be secure in your own musical values and taste.****
I seem to recall someone else making that very comment about three years (!) ago 😉.
Anyway, still hopeful that things settle and that he comes to his senses.
Cheers.
** btw, how’s that for "sucking up"? ☺️ |
Kindly post some of those "superlatives" about "Like Young" by Previn; I don't see a single mention of it in what you posted. |
|
|
jazzcourier, couldn't agree more re Harold Arlen and Joe Pass. Pat Martino is in a class by himself among the living players. Astounding; although Pass is the one that always moved me most. He is sorely missed. I posted this recently and I think it's worth posting again: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cyqJwJzGB0gI heard this young man recently at a club here in NY. I was very impressed with his maturity as a player who, while definitely with a modern sensibility, has not, as Rok likes to say, strayed too far from the Jazz farm. I think he's someone to keep an eye on: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fYqaiEicGjs |
sbank, thank you for that; I will check it out. |
Alex, thanks for bringing Johnny Smith back to the discussion. What a nice player! Beautiful and unaffected guitar sound and feel. Jazzcourier points out his affinity for medium tempo tunes and ballads. Ballads are probably the biggest test of any player's true mettle not having the "crutch" of the opportunity to simply show off sheer and sometimes meaningless chops. Perhaps there is some significance to his choice of title for this tune: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gobhuQ9BKWgHowever, this is not to say he couldn't tear it up when he wanted to: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L4wbcMR3chk |
Rok, "Finger Poppin"; another classic Silver recording! "Cookin At The Continental" has always been one of my favorite Silver tunes and my favorite on the record. I believe this is the first recording by the classic Silver Quintet and those guys were in top form. Mitchell sounds amazing and "Cookin" has one of my favorite Silver solos of all time. Great stuff!
Delta City Blues:
What can be said about Michael Brecker that hasn’t been said a thousand times over? First of all, probably the greatest saxophone virtuoso (any genre, including classical) that ever lived. He was able to do things on the instrument that no one else could and with an ease that was hard to believe. Stylistically, obviously coming out of the Coltrane school, harmonic approach-wise and tone-wise. It is not too much of a stretch to say that he was the most influential saxophone player of his generation with scores of young saxophone players copying Breckerisms over the last four decades. Even the prominent younger tenor players who strive to stay "closer to the farm" (at least in their own minds) can be heard to show his influence; especially in how they inflect certain notes on the instrument. Amazing instrumentalist and, within his stylistic world, an amazing jazz player. He was also one of the most humble individuals you could ever meet. His recent death after a long illness was a great loss to the saxophone world.
Thanks for that great clip.
|
|
"It's Got To Be Funky":
Listened to the clip before reading the second part of your post. My first thought was: "some writers are small ensemble writers; it's a different skill to write for large ensemble". Eventhough the first "Silver And Brass" record worked well, I don't think this is as successful. I agree, I don't think the ensemble adds much. Also, I don't like the drummer; kinda loose and sloppy and not terribly "funky".
"It's Got To Be Funky": 1993
Bootleg concert recording ("Song FMF"): 1994. Same bass player, different drummer. Hmmmm! Coincidence? Not too many players would "turn down" a tour with Horace Silver 🤔
|
Rok, Sonny is fond of playing tunes that are not only standards, but oftentimes very unlikely choices for a jazz rendition. Here's one of my favorite examples: http://youtu.be/vGnYd33z0IwWe've talked about players and singers who play exceptionally "in the pocket"; with exceptional time feel and very inside the beat. Sonny is on the short list of musicians who have (or had) that quality; alongside Pops, Ray Charles, James Brown, Miles and others. With Sonny, it's as if the rhythm section plays to HIS time feel instead of the other way around. Nice clips from "+3", thanks. Re "Duets": I'm sure the OP is aware of this detail since he is so intimately familiar with Sonny's "tone and timbre"; but, since the current topic is Sonny Rollins and we certainly wouldn't want to mislead any aspirants to "true aficionado" status, it should be pointed out that the tenor player on the "Con Alma" clip that he posted is not Rollins, it is Stitt. |
Not a big fan of the soul guitar thing. I like Eddie Fisher's sound and feel, just not his choice of "bag" so much; a little too "smooth" for me. Also, some serious tuning issues in "The Third Cup"; very flat to the organ. Surprised they let that slip by. I kinda like him, though. Alex introduced me to this guy and I would prefer to listen to this which leans more to the funk farm than the soul farm; just my preference. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EPARbr-Ie54https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-GipxvHw8A8 |
Sonny, "Live At The Village Vaguard":
When all is said and done, probably my favorite Sonny recording; even above "Saxophone Colossus". Perhaps the best example of what can be done with a piano-less trio. I have four copies of this lp and have worn two of them out (the ones I've had since before, well...you know...the high end audio stuff) . Have played this recording perhaps more than any other tenor saxophone recording. Absolutely brilliant example of the art of improvisation from one of the geniuses of the music. Fascinating how a tenor player can be so hip and harmonically sophisticated while escaping the almost inescapable Coltrane influence. Rhythmically commanding like no one else. For me, a more direct connection to and lineage with the great swing players; brought to modern times of course. Can you tell I like this guy? Thank you for a very timely post! I can listen to this forever. Speaking of audio, also great example of why there's something special about a good mono recording. As with most things, and certainly in music, less is more.
|
I would be glad to give you an answer that I guarantee is accurate. However, and I think it's very unfortunate that it's come to this, I have to say that I will not engage in yet another ridiculous dispute with you. My answer will be an honest one and for it to have any meaning it will necessarily start by my pointing out that there are some fundamental problems with your basic premise; at least the way you have worded it. The problems (per your wording) point to a lack of understanding not only about the business, but also about the music itself. If interested, let me know and I can respond later this evening.
|
EDIT: my, my, we are impatient. I believe I said "later this evening". No? Perhaps my "hav(ing) gone mad" has affected my sense of time.
--------------------
O-10, eventhough I am not a cynic by nature, I seriously doubt that the "major war is over"; but, I always welcome a cease-fire.
Re you question, and please understand that I am taking your questions at face value. If you meant something different by any one of them, I have no way of knowing:
A well known jazz artist would not go to St. Louis and then decide that he wants to gig. Unless, of course, he goes to spend a summer vacationing with O-10 or other personal reason and then decides he wants to gig. A well known jazz artist would generally go to St. Louis AFTER he or his booking agent has lined up some engagements in clubs or festivals. Simply showing up in St. Louis does not guarantee being able to get gigs at all; even when well-known. Clubs and festivals have artists booked and rosters filled WAY in advance.
Now, lets assume that the scenario IS that the artist decided to hang with O-10 for a few months and then decided that he wanted to also do some playing while in St. Louis. A "gig" is a paying job and he might be able to get some gigs in small clubs on short notice by virtue of the fact that he is well known. These gigs pay very little. The artist may also simply want to play (for no money) to keep his chops in shape. Being well known means that he probably already knows who the best players in town are, or knows someone who does. By contacting those persons he can find out if there are any scheduled jam sessions in town or can put together a trio for an engagement that he may have been able to book. If the artist goes to St.Louis because his agent has booked some gigs for him, the agent may also book the other musicians by contacting booking agents in St. Louis or hiring the players that the artist wants to play with based on recommendations by other players or personal experience.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by "improvisational jazz, no Moonlight In Vermont or other standards". If you are talking about "free" jazz, where EVERYTHING is improvised and there are no "tunes" or predetermined structure to the music, then "gigs" will be just about impossible to get as there is a very limited audience for this kind of jazz. It will also be more difficult to find decent "free" players. If you are talking about the kind of jazz that is discussed here where there is typically a "tune" (melody) and then the players improvise over the chord changes of that tune, then "Moonlight In Vermont" qualifies as much as any other tune that has been posted here. It has a melody, a certain form, and a set of chord changes. It is an appropriate vehicle for improvisation and, in fact, has been played and improvised on by many jazz artists. As recently posted, there is no reason that Sonny Rollins playing "How Are Things In Glocca Morra" should not be considered "straight up jazz".
The community of jazz musicians is a small one and players know each other or know about the ones who can play. I suspect that the clip of Eddie Fisher playing live is a perfect example of a player showing up to play with a band he had never met before. This has been discussed before. While the idea that players who had never met can play so "coherently" is impressive, keep in mind that, especially in the case of that Fisher clip, it’s pretty formulaic music with very simple chord progressions or even one single chord for all the improvisation. Most decent players can do this in their sleep; and , in fact, the players accompanying Fisher are decent and no more. Now, to play "Giant Steps" with its complicated chord changes or to play simpler tunes at the highest level of artistry is a different matter altogether and only a well rehearsed band can do that credibly.
|
****Frogman, (O-10) I've been waiting for an answer (Thank you) to (for) those questions (answers) since 5:30 (12:21 PM) and it's now 11:15 (9:31 AM) what's up?****
|
jazzcourier, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for your knowledge of jazz and its history; and, I certainly respect your writing chops. However, I believe you are taking this matter way too far. First of all, unless you have followed this thread closely since its inception, you cannot have a good sense of the communication and writing styles of its active participants so as to keep comments that are made in their proper perspective. The phrase that you object to has been used, rightly or wrongly, many times on this thread and there has been no indication that it has ever been used with any kind of racist intent. I realize that you may feel that the phrase that you find offensive is offensive under any circumstances and in any context. However, you have no way of knowing what is in the heart of the person who uses what is a fairly common phrase that, while possibly and rightly considered insensitive, is not necessarily anything more than that in the heart of the person using it. Likewise, I don't know you personally and know you only from your interesting and educated commentaries on jazz so I have no way of knowing what is in YOUR heart; so, the following comments are not directed at you personally and are simply an expression of my skepticism as concerns reaction to this kind of "negative activity".
Political correctness run amuk has become a kind of cancer and an opportunistic tool to, ironically, stifle freedom of expression. Moreover, experience has shown me that, especially as concerns racism, those who see racism at every turn are sometimes, in fact, the worst racists of all. Again, this is only an explanation for my skepticism and a plea to not make possibly unfair assumptions and is nothing directed at you personally.
Now, you made your feelings known and admonished the use of and the person who used the phrase and demanded an apology. It was made clear that no apology was forthcoming. Then you escalate matters by taking the issue to the "authorities". This begs the question: did you escalate matters because you found the behavior even more offensive than you first did, or did you escalate matters because Rok would not apologize? Considering that you had no way of knowing whether he would ever use the phrase again, then escalating matters because there would be no apology is uncalled for. Who, then, would be playing "security guard on duty"? Additionally, if per chance the "negative activity" you refer to is the comment about talking about "the origins of black music and slavery", you should know that those two topics have been the subject of very intense and interesting discussion on this thread and it has been done in nothing but the most positive and respectful way; even when there has been disagreement. Since you have not been a part of those discussions you would not know that. Just one more reason why proper context and restraint in jumping to conclusions is so important.
I strongly urge you to reconsider escalating this matter and I look forward to more of your interesting comments about the music. |
I want to congratulate jazzcourier on an excellent edition of "All That Jazz", hosted by him on KUNM. I listened to it and found it highly rewarding and interesting; thank you for the invitation, jazzcourier. I recommend the show highly to all reading this.
The word jazz "great" gets thrown around way too casually in my opinion. If so many of the musicians who we discuss we also call great, then what do we call a musician like Duke Ellington whose music towers above all but a small handful in this art form? Listening to jazzcourier's show reminded me of this and why it's so important as a listener to always aim to be a more and more discerning and smarter listener. The show featured many gems that I had never heard before; especially the radio broadcast transcriptions. Some of the biggest surprises for me:
- Radio transcription of "Happy Go Lucky Local". Reminder of what great "old school" ensemble playing was all about. Tight, tight, right, and always conscious of the composer's intent with a beautiful sense of blend trumping (sorry) individual ego; saving the ego for when the individual's player unique "voice" was wanted by the composer which was how he always wrote.
- Norris Turney's flute (!) on "Mahalia Suite".
- Duke's solo piano version of "Nagoya" which would become one of the movements of "Far East Suite". Amazing in its freshness and modern sensibility.
I appreciated jazzcourier's economy of words in his descriptions of the music. Got the point across without the "this is how tightly Bird tightened his shoe strings that day" kind of detail heard from another jazz dj I listen to (Phil Schaap). Anyone who is interested can, with a little sleuthing, find out more about jazzcourier's credentials; they are impressive. I hope he continues to post on this thread.
|
O-10, my father would often say: "some people are not simply s&@?!d; they are, first and foremost, mean spirited".
I could waste my time even further by asking what on earth I wrote that is fundamentally different from what you wrote; I won’t bother. I could also ask you why, if you knew the answer (or so you think) why you bothered asking the question. I won’t bother with that either; the answer goes to my father’s wise words. You are so pathetically intent on somehow proving me wrong about anything that, as always, you see only what you want to see. As always, no comment about the music. Shame on me for taking the bait.
O-10, this last episode is the last straw for me. Not as far as my participation in this thread, you can’t control that; but, as far as my holding back about what I really think because I believe you are doing the participants and anyone new to the music a disservice by your insistence on keeping things in the gutter. That you know very little about the music and its language has been obvious and proudly admitted by you. The really bizarre part of all this is that I believe that, just as with your claims to have seen Coltrane live and which you later admitted were "exaggerations", you are making all of this stuff up. I don’t believe there was any jazz playing friend, no encounters with Grant Green, no nothing; all made up by a need to .....who knows? Shame on you.
|
****Whew, that was close.****
😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄
|
Marcus Roberts’ pianos:
First, very nice clips by Roberts. Which is the Chang upright?
Interesting question. At first I thought, way too easy. Jelly Roll’s "The Crave". Why? Jelly Roll would probably have played on an upright. More importantly, the piano played on "The Crave" has been detuned; and in a big way. Listen to how it was made (tuned) to sound like a honky-tonk piano; which would, almost by definition, be an upright. Some of the right hand notes are deliberately and seriously out of tune and the piano seems to have, AT TIMES, a lighter and less weighty sound than the other two as a result of the detuning. There is, in fact, a technique used by specialty piano technicians called "Honky-Tonk". This would leave the Steinway Concert Grand for the other two tunes. But wait! The piano on the Ellington and the Monk sound like two different pianos. Hmmm.
On the Ellington, the piano sounds weighty, full and rich, extended left hand and very sophisticated sounding; befitting the music of THE DUKE. On the Monk, the piano sounds lighter, both lighter sounding and a little muffled at the same time, different timbre, almost a little nasal, a little more nimble; like someone forgot to turn on the subwoofer. Dilemma:
I know what logic tells me; but, I know what my ears tell me. If I get it right I will be forced to listen to several Bey Sisters CD’s. If I get it wrong I will be giving ammunition to some in certain quarters who are desperate for ammunition. Either way, a no-win situation 😥
Final answer:
The Chang upright is played on Monk’s "In Walked Bud".
Listening done on an IPad.
😁 |
mattmiller, don’t worry, sometimes it doesn’t last very long......sometimes it does. Following Rok’s lead: Who can guess why I am posting this? The winner gets my prize of the loan of The Bey Sisters CDs; I think it’s transferable ☺️. http://youtu.be/MsF9RMIXLfw |
And a sincere apology to mattmiller in case my attempt at stealth humor was not obvious; nothing directed at him personally. Thanks for the post and please stick around. Btw, we have recently checked out the great Michael Brecker. You mention Billy Cobham, his second record "Crosswinds" was the very first time that I heard Brecker. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l-b_h8i9eWU |
Yes, THE Mitch Miller. He played oboe on "Bird With Strings"; all oboe parts improvised, btw.
Good catch; you win back the prize.
|
|
|
For the record, and to keep my quoted comments in proper not incomplete/distorted context:
****The often discussed great (and he was) Grant Green made recordings late in his career that where, in my opinion, considerably inferior to his classics.****
Moreover, the entire second half of my quoted comments are in reference to a recording other than the reposted "Lighthouse" recording. And, of course, the even bigger context and reason for my comments was the attempt to determine a possible reason for why some recordings are not released right away. I am generally not one for conspiracy theories.
Man, if that olive tree loses any more branches, not even Bird will be able to find a perch on it 😊 |
G.F. Händel: Water Music - Akademie für alte Musik Berlin:
Fabulous! If I could could give it six stars (and anybody cared), I would. Beautiful and spirited playing of this wonderful music. Truth is, I have never been a huge fan of the "period instrument" movement for some of the very reasons that I didn't like the French orchestra's performance. This is special. The period instruments display their unique timbres and overall "softer" tones; but, when appropriate, these players dig in and play them with real verve and without the often heard sense that there is something unusually precious about these period instruments or the way they are supposed to be played. Fabulous baroque oboe, baroque flute and natural horn playing (would like to know Learsfool's take on the latter). Excellent intonation and section to section balance (!) overall.
There is something special, when it works, about a conductorless orchestra. In this case the "conductor" is the concert master. Players are forced (a good thing) to listen to each other with a level of care that is not always the case when there is a conductor's beat to follow. Some really magical things can happen as a resuIt. It doesn't always work and in no way should the role of a great conductor be underestimated. This definitely works.
They are standing as was common practice at the time the music was composed. Not all are standing; only the ones who can. I don't know that this is the same performance that would be on the disc as I read a reference to the one on the disc having been recorded in a studio. Harmonia Mundi recording is a sure bet that it will be great sounding and no reason to expect that it would not be a performance at least as good as the one heard on this video.
Loved it. Thanks and will be ordering it myself.
|
It is rare the artist that retains the rights to unreleased material. It is possible to include a provision in an artist’s contract that stipulates that, should the label fail to release the recording, the artist then retains the copyright to that recording. However, this is rare and the record label usually owns all of the contracted artist’s material for (usually) fifty years or so. Agree or disagree the record labels reasoning and justification for these practices is their claim that it takes a great deal of upfront investment to record, release and promote a recording. As Rok points out, they are a business and in the business of. making money. Having said that, I think it’s important to remember that if the label doesn’t make money, no artist makes money (from recordings). I don’t believe that a record label sets out to NOT release a recording and then save it until the artist has passed in an effort to make money. They don’t release a particular recording because they don’t feel it is commercially viable AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME. Contrary to popular belief here, some artists DO make and HAVE made inferior recordings. I use this example not to start yet another war here, but as an expression of my viewpoint. The often discussed great (and he was) Grant Green made recordings late in his career that where, in my opinion, considerably inferior to his classics. The most recently posted clips of his work show an artist going into a (soul-funk-whatever) genre that was populated by some pretty stiff competition like George Benson and Wes Montgomery; players who were receiving a lot of attention and backing. Importantly, for some reason, his backing bands in these later recordings sometimes left a lot to be desired, imo. Case in point, the recently posted "Live At The Lighthouse". Whose idea was it to hire Claude Bartee for that recording? Who knows. But it was not a good choice; he sounds absolutely awful on soprano saxophone. I can see a scenario where label executives would decide to not release a recording like that because there was so much other music in a similar bag being released by them or other labels. I hate posting recordings of what I consider inferior music, but simply to make a point here is a recording that, to my way of thinking, one has to wonder "what where they thinking?"; and almost twenty minutes of it!! Terrible horn arrangements. Sometimes artists make bad choices; sometimes producers make bad choices or decisions. Simple as that. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zKVvBHusoMYEven the great Michael Brecker's solo sounds a little "dialed in". |
Benson’s take on Mario Bauza’s Cu-bop classic which Grant Green recorded three decades earlier. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=11-TeC5wq90A generation that is not particularly appreciative of the "less is more" approach to things might be seduced by Benson’s very slick state of the art rrangement and production. I like it; but, for feel and swagger Green’s version gets my vote. I suspect O-10 would agree. What do you think, O-10? |
Ok, O-10, lets play; if you insist. Remember, as I said before, "don't expect silence when there is disrespect directed at a dissenting opinion". Now, I realize that you need this bizarre interaction for reasons that only your shrink can figure out (although I have some pretty good ideas); so, let's just say I'm trying to help you out. Let's go slowly and step by step for the sake of clarity: I have tremendous respect for Alex and his contributions here, so.... ****neither one of you completely responded to Alex's post**** - How exactly did I not respond to Alex's post? What part of his post did I not address? With specifics please. ****and now you don't respond to mine, **** Seriously? Your posts can be so convoluted and confused that it's practically impossible to respond to them. However, as I see it, I responded in a perfectly clear way to what I believe is the heart of the matter re this ridiculous Grant Green business. I will try it one last time. My thoughts about Green; in a nutshell: Really good guitar player who was, I would say, a significant influence on players like Wes Montgomery and George Benson; players who would go on to be the highest profile guitar players in the emerging funk/soul-jazz movement. For a variety of reasons, his recordings toward the end of his career where not, in my opinion, on the same level as his classics. Overall, as has been pointed out, not a "game changer" in the overall scheme of the music. - So, how is any of that "a lie"? A strange claim for someone who so often hides behind the "subjectivity" smoke screen. - If by "lie" you refer to the issue of which records were released, when, which made it to Japan, etc. I am frankly not interested in those details. As usual you sadly miss an opportunity to learn something about the music that is much more important: what is it that defines a truly great musician? what does it mean to have had an influence on the music? what is influence? what is it that shapes careers in music? what is it the sustains careers in music? how does the world of the music business work? Oh, yeah....and, God forbid....what is it that some listeners don't like about Green’s later records and why? - Why the leaning on positive "reviews" by some unknown writer somewhere in the e-universe? Who cares? If you will give so much weight to these, why do you dismiss the ones critical of Green's late recordings? As has been said before, be confident with your opinions, respect those of others; and, if you really want to do something productive, try and understand why some may disagree with you. Lastly, I would like to bring up an issue that I have refrained from bringing up for quite some time out of.....yes, you heard it here, O-10.....respect for you as the OP. However, you have done such a good job of eroding any semblence of adherence to the notion of respect that....what the hell! It also goes to some comments I made recently that, in retrospect, I probably should not have made; but, like the guy hitting his head on the wall, well....sometimes the absurdity of it all is simply too much to take. I refer to the incongruesness and a kind of contradiction in the use of the word "aficionado" in conjunction with "jazz". I have always found it to be a rather curious choice of words for the subject at hand. From my vantage point, the main fuel for these ridiculous arguments is your insistence on personalizing matters; not only with your "hits below the belt" (disrespect), but also with your emphasis on "personal" accounts about musicians. These "personal" accounts are often peppered with words and phrases intended to evoke a certain feeling of closeness to and supposed experience and familiarity with the musicians and their culture; phrases like "phaking the phunk", "dis here", "jam", "boss", "gitin down", and many more like them. But, here's the curious thing: jazz musicians don't talk like that. What is this about? I will concede that perhaps these are simply O-10'isms and nothing more; but, curious nonetheless. Please enlighten me. I realize that I have thrown a lot your way. A lot of things to address, but you wanted to play. I am confident that if you take it step by step you can do it. I know you can. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx9xO98kcBU |
|
|
Once again, grounded and significant exchange of ideas seems to get foiled by the tendency to want to take sides in a discussion/debate so as to somehow garner supporters. Alex, as usual, makes some very good, reasonable and evenhanded comments; there is nothing that he wrote re Grant Green that I can disagree with. Moreover, as I interpret his comments, I don’t see that he is coming out in anybody’s favor. He can, of course speak for himself on that point; although it’s not really that important. I see nothing in what he wrote that buttresses O-10’s comments about Green that have been the cause of the disagreement. I have repeatedly said that he was a great player, but that his later recordings were not as good as his classics. Rok has said essentially the same thing. Neither of us has said that he wasn’t an important player. I don’t want to speak for him, and only as way of example, but Rok’s comment was simply that he wasn’t THAT important that he was a game changer. I agree, although I believe that he was, in fact, an influential player. Why this opinion about this player should cause such a disturbance is what is, in fact, most ridiculous of all. So, why keep the commentary in a "me against them" kind of realm? I have said this countless times: there can be disagreement without disrespect if everyone is comfortable and confident in their opinions. Just don’t expect silence when disrespect is directed towards a dissenting opinion. What is this "true aficionado" (or not) branding bullshit? It will lead to nothing positive and is precisely the kind of thing that keeps things mired in negativity.
I find it ironic that a music that is so replete with subtlety and nuance should receive so little of the same by some of the commentary here. Why does it have to mean when someone says "I don’t like recording x by artist z" that everything else by the artist is thought to be no good? A ridiculous and very sophomoric notion. The post before this one says it all in my opinion; how pathetic. As always, I hope we can do better.
|
****Today there was a crisis here in my home. 'Our' cat that has set up homestead in our back yard, cleaned out his bowl of food, and then walked right out into the yard and killed a bird at the bird bath. My wife wants to kill the cat. i asked, why? She was just doing what cats do. They kill things. That's what they do. If she was bigger, she would kill us.****
Like a welcomed and well timed few beats of silence in the middle of a very busy trumpet (I don't dare say guitar) solo, my nomination for best post of the last few days 😜
|
|
Jon Hendricks: Why on earth would it suffer the same fate as the Bey Sisters? Great stuff indeed. Rok, you may not recall, but I posted that very Freddie Freeloader clip a couple of years ago (!). And, coincidentally and if memory serves, I posted some Manhattan Transfer in my comments about The Bey Sisters around the same time; we must have been on a vocal group binge at the time. Great clips. Jon Hendricks kills me. BTW, re Benson's singing: one of the reasons that he rose and became a star in the soul/jazz guitar scene and Green lost some steam; imo. There is a long tradition of vocalists taking improvised instrumental solos and scatting them and/or putting lyrics to them. Manhattan Transfer's rendition of Coleman Hawkins' famous solo on "Body And Soul", long considered one of the milestone recorded jazz solos (and available here as well as Japan : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SAqUNlWUxlA****Since you and Rok are in lockstep.....**** Horrors! I don't think so. When I can get Rok to agree with me about the sound of audio cables....then, maybe 😄. O-10, it's simpy called respect and confidence in one's opinions. You can join the party anytime. |
O-10, I have no way of knowing (and I’m not sure you do either) whether the records you speak of (and yes, I know what lps are, I have 3500 of them) where actually released, or whether they are copies that, as I tried (in vain) to describe to you previously, can survive a move by the record co. to stop release (Prince’s "Black Album"). However, perhaps this may mean something to you; it does to me:
In 1991, I toured Japan with a major symphony orchestra (first of seven trips there). A colleague who was also going on this tour had setup for himself a minor "business" of bringing along two or three flutes in order to sell to a dealer in Japan with whom he had a relationship. At the risk of alarming the pc crowd, I will point out that Japanese collectors are a unique breed; they are passionate about collecting musical instruments and records (among other things). I cannot directly speak to the records side of all this, but I can tell you from direct experience that they will pay considerably more for a musical instrument than what it will fetch in the USA; not because it is a superior, or even a good instrument, but simply because it may be a certain vintage, a certain serial number that completes a series, was manufactured on the same day that the Japanese prime minister farted in public, etc, Long story short: I was able to sell an instrument that was inferior and mediocre at best for $8100 when it would have fetched about $4500 in the states. Why? Because he already had instruments in the serial#2000 series and in the #4000 series; none in the #3000 series like mine. Extrapolate from this what you will. Not much, I suspect.
Btw, who exactly says they were Green’s best? Somebody who happens to post on the Internet? Seriously? What does O-10 think? And since you insist on debating the issue, more importantly, why are they his best? I know what I think.
|
Ok, I'm starting to feel a little guilty; I'll stop. But, thanks 😅
|
Acman3, I agree with you. I said essentially the same thing a while ago. My question is DID they "sell big"? I don't know. I can tell you that in many parts of the entertainment industry "trial runs" are done outside of the U.S. in order to see if the project is commercially viable. It is cheaper to do so outside the U.S. This goes to the other parts of your comment. Why did they record him? Contracts. A contract guarantees an artist a certain # of recordings; or, at least, mandates that he record a certain number of records. |
From the time that I started posting on this thread I have expressed the opinion that there is a danger to the music lover in losing sight of a certain degree of objectivity in evaluating not only the music, but also issues related to the music. Music lovers tend to over-romanticize the music, the musicians and the process of making music. "Process" is the operative word. There is a lot about this process that is very mundane and, if you will, technical. We want our precious music to be solely the product of inspiration and emotion. There’s more to the process than that. This tendency to over-romanticize and to be resistant to understanding the.....here it is.....the much ridiculed (by some) nuts and bolts of the process not only ironically clouds our ultimate potential to fully understand and enjoy the depth of the beauty of the music, it can also cause us to make all sorts of unfounded assumptions about the process and to see boogy-men where there are none. This absurd and long running Grant Green and his unreleased recordings saga is a perfect example.
So much has been made and speculated here about the reasons why some of his recordings were not released in a supposedly timely fashion. The OP has a very personal and romantic take on the situation and appears to be convinced that Green was a victim of greedy record label executives and has even insinuated that these executives deliberately fed this musician’s drug habit in an effort to exploit him. That the OP loves Green’s music is a beautiful thing. That the rose-colored glasses that he looks at everything Green through keep him from having a more realistic take on which of Green’s recordings have merit and which don’t is not. However, as concerns the issue of the release of recordings, he is so hell bent on believing that Green was a victim that he overlooks the most obvious. Personally, this is so obvious that it didn’t even occur to me to look at this aspect of the issue assuming that a true Grant Green-file like the OP would surely have done his homework; but, no, he prefers the romance of the "exploited artist" and fan (O-10). Acman3, don’t feel badly about not checking facts, your premise is correct; it is the important backdrop to the facts and your mention of the facts is what caused me to take a look at them more closely. The OP makes much to do about the facts. Since it is the Christian thing to do lets do the work for him and look at the facts (per Green’s Bluenote discography on Wiki); it may even put an end to this insanity:
Green recorded 6 records in 1961 - 2 were released that year
Green recorded 6 records in 1962 - 0 were released that year. But, wait!. 2 were released that were recorded in 1961.
Green recorded 3 records in 1963 - 2 were released that were recorded in 1962.
Green recorded 4 records in 1964 - 2 were released that were recorded in 1963.
Green recorded 1 record in 1965 - 2 were released that were recorded in 1963.
Do I need to go on? Is it not obvious?
CONTRACT, CONTRACT, CONTRACT, CONTRACT, CONTRACT, no conspiracy, no boogy-men; CONTRACT.
Green’s 2 year contract with Blue Note called for the recording of 6 records and the release of 2 records per year. In 1963 his new contract called for the recording of 3 records and still the release of two. By 1965 Blue Note had 11 (!!!!) unreleased recordings by Green including Green’s first (1960) which wasn’t released till much later. What the hell is BN supposed to do with all that material? There was probably a provision in the contract that stipulated that these would be USA releases. BN determined, for business AND ARTISTIC reasons, that the U.S. market could absorb only two recordings per year and, I am sure, were also concerned with the issue of overexposure for the artist. They chose the recordings that they felt were THE BEST for the U.S. market and later released the others in what is called a secondary market (Japan) where it’s possible the U.S. releases were not available. Then, on top of all that, we get to Acman3’s (and mine) premise; the backdrop to all the previous:
By 1963 Miles had recorded "KOB" and "Seven Steps To Heaven" and Coltrane had recorded "Giant Steps" and that very year 1963 saw the release of his "Impressions"; jazz would not be the same again. As great as a Green was his style of hard bop was being supplanted by something else and probably the reason that by the third year he was required to record half as many records. What does he do? He tries to go the new soul/funk-jazz way. The rest is history and has been discussed here and beaten to death.
The ridiculous "junky" issue:
The OP obviously has no clue what a tremendous liability it is for a record company to have drug addicts on its catalog. The cost of a junkie not showing up for a recording session is tremendous. The studio and personnel as well as the other musicians still need to get paid; and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
As Rok so succinctly put it: "get over it".
|
|
|
Hank Mobley, "No Room For Squares":
Somehow, I managed to squeeze into this room 😉 One of about one hundred of my favorite records which during a move and while temporarily laid on the floor, my Chihuahua "Max" chewed the spines of because he was pissed that he was being forced out of his comfy digs. Original BN; great record and one of my favorite titles for a jazz record. Wanted to kill the little bastard and kinda wish Rok's cat had been around. Max is no longer with us......natural causes 😥
For me, if a tenor player had to be picked as being the "eye of the storm" of jazz, it would be Mobley. What I mean is that he is, to my ears, squarely (pun) and very comfortably right in the middle between the swing tenor tradition and the post-hardbop Coltrane infused style. Harmonically hip and sophisticated without getting too far out or with the sense that he was always reaching like Joe Henderson; a sense that he was comfortable just where he was with his vocabulary. Warm tone without the modern edge. Love his playing.
Nice clip, O-10; thanks. And thanks for making think of Max.
|
