|
****Frogman, can you be musically and politically correct?****
Are you asking whether I can be, or are you asking whether ONE can be? Also, what do you mean by "musically correct"?
****What is your assessment when comparing "free jazz" to what I consider is within musical bounds.****
Couldnt even begin to answer that question. Your musical bounds are yours. I may feel that your "bounds" are too restrictive, but they are your comfort zone, not mine. I find value in some free jazz as long as it's not bs masquerading as jazz. I've said it before, imo the listener should always have a certain degree of humility when trying to make an assessment like this. What I mean is, I may not "like" a particular musical choice by an artist; however, when we're talking about an artist who is an acknowledged musical giant, as Coltrane was, to declare it "going too far" strikes me as arrogant. I prefer to, at least for the time being, respect that artist's musical vision and leave the door open to perhaps growing to understand and maybe even like it some day. After all, who the hell am I (or you) compared to a giant like Coltrane. Personally, I would put my money on his judgment not mine. Of course, not all artists merit that level of respect.
|
O-10, I realize that there is no hope of you ever cutting out the crap, because it’s obvious that you feel threatened by my presence on this thread. As I said before, if you’re looking for an argument please look elsewhere. I wasn’t aware that anyone here was obligated to answer every question asked of them, especially when the comments that you direct at me are often laced with sarcasm and your questions have proven to sometimes be no more that baiting. I realize that you are incapable of seeing, never mind acknowledging this, but my posts are clear, succinct and (usually) extremely well written. I don’t give a darn whether you can acknowledge that or not, but, man!, can you try a person’s patience. Try, for once, taking responsibilty for what you write and how you write it; it is often confusing and muddled. Let’s see, we were talking about fusion; and "in depth" as you requested. Then, you write this:
****Santana and "Abraxas" took over the world of music in 1970; this music could be heard everywhere I went; jazz, rock, blues establishments, no matter what the dominant genre of music in that particular lounge, something from "Abraxas" was on the jukebox. (never went to a hillbilly lounge)
Rok, you have to go back to what was happening at that time in order to re-discover fusion; I’m sure you bought at least 2 or 3 fusion albums.****
Is it that far fetched that I should think that you were using that as an example? Especially when it IS fusion; of a different kind. And if I did misconstue what you meant...so what? Why all the indignation? Get over it man!! Why don’t you try making a significant contribution to the topic YOU brought up instead of all this bs? We’re to 1973 now and I’m still waiting 😁
****I can not imagine anyone stupid enough to think Santana "Abraxas" was fusion.****
I can. |
Fabulous! What a heart warming story. Gareth Malone is a saint. And, the next time someone says "either you got it or you don't".......
Thanks for sharing. |
Honest question: just what is SO offensive about calling it jazz? First of all it's usually called fusion jazz; but let's not split hairs. Classic jazz stands on its own as the great music it was and is. Why do you think that such a powerful and important art form can't withstand the POSSIBLE misuse of the name by a newer genre? How, exactly, is it being hurt by the appropriation of the name? Who or what suffers by this? |
It's not fusion; I was yanking your chain. But, you still don't know fusion when you hear it; obviously. So, you didn't pan Taylor, does this mean you actually like it? There might be hope yet 😕 |
O-10, you, sir, are not a music lover; you are a music opportunist. And, you just corroborated everything that I wrote previously; not that it was necessary. Why do I feel like I need to go take a shower?
1973? |
Can’t generalize. Well, maybe you can; I can’t. ****It didn’t go anywhere**** Dead wrong. And, as I said, the reason that a chronological approach is key. 1973: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hNlm-W3m1qcNot better than The Stones as far as basic musical values and craft? Seriously? Not good jazz as far as level of improvisation and interplay between the players? Seriously? And btw, we haven’t even gotten to the really good stuff. |
To be honest, I don't care WHAT you (or anyone) call it. If it's good music that's all that matters. You don't like fusion; that's fine. And, yes, if I HAD to choose between the two (a silly notion, but hey!) I would choose classic jazz (jazz-jazz); but, don't think for one moment (and I'm not saying you do) that because someone likes good fusion (or whatever) that it means that they like jazz-jazz (!) any less than you do, or that you have a deeper appreciation of it because you don't. |
O-10, you are without a doubt one of the most disingenous individuals that I have ever had interaction with; it boggles the mind. No, I don't think the interest is below zero and I will post as I see fit; thank you very much. |
I have no problem with not referring to it as fusion-jazz. Honestly, it simplifies matters. From now on we'll refer to it as simply fusion and I actually think that's pretty much how it's been so far. I don't think the other way degrades anything; but, hey, if it makes you happy.....How's that? 😎 |
|
Duke's piano: Thanks for the heads up. I think I'll pass; I already have Basie's and my wife would kill me since I'm holding out for Cecil Taylor's. I think you'll like this: Cecil Taylor in 1973: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RSv0uR-uupU |
Alex, thank you for the introduction to Ganelin Trio. I agree with your description; impressive musicians. I previously commented that "free jazz" sometimes is no more than bs masquerading as jazz; these players definitely do not fall into that category. Impressive interplay and musical intuition; all with a uniquely and subtle ethnic (non-American) slant, as it should be. In its way, very soulful. I’m sure it doesn’t come as a surprise that I don’t feel that fusion is a dead end at all; and the notion is, as you say, only a theory. If the discussion continues I think you may reconsider. You pose a very interesting question. I will offer some thoughts when I have more time.
|
1974: The genre is really hitting its stride about now. Dave Liebman and Lookout Farm release what is one of the greatest records in the genre. Liebman is probably the most soulful of all the post-Coltrane tenor players. Miles alum as well as of the great band with Elvin Jones in which he was paired with fellow tenor player Steve Grossman. Imo, anyone who doesn't think this is jazz (fused or not) needs professional help (I'm booked up): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=svDy-H0O90MWith Chick Corea and Herbie Hancock dominating the piano scene in the genre, Steve Khun was a somewhat lesser known player; but highly inventive. Steve Swallow on bass and the great Jack DeJohnette on drums. One of the first recordings which would define the label ECM's "house sound": https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL18yhXvkVdCDkFoebEdbRjFBsyy9riS5L¶ms=OAFIAVgD&v=ngYi7G..."Soul" comes in different flavors and to try to define it strictly based on one's inevitably limited palette and frame of reference is foolish. John Abercrombie is an interesting player in that his music can sound intellectual, but has its own brand of deep soulfulness. Unique guitar sound: https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLiddD2xaVE9NXE73cEAcdsh9SUkaBQlAd¶ms=EAEYATgBSAFYA2ILNU5tN... |
Ghosthouse and jzzmusician, thanks for the clips. I enjoyed the Andy Summers clips and I always enjoyed his work with The Police. I look forward to more clips from you.
jzzmusician, I love that Herbie Hancock clip. I posted that very clip about two years ago (!); thanks for bringing it back and for keeping the timeline. Two years ago, I seem to recall that the only response it got from the clu......ahem....purists, was a comment about Herbie's shoes. Personally, I dig Bennie Maupin's suspenders the best 😊. Maupin is one of the funkiest saxophone players ever; deserving of more recognition.
I must say that I find it very ironic, but not surprising, that the entire genre "fusion" is being panned by some, yet what is being posted is newer Santana with its cheesy synth sounds and formulaic compositional and production values, and New Age (!!) Shadowfax (!!!!). Seriously? To each his own I guess; no point arguing about it. Importantly, as I knew was the case and contrary to recent assertion, there is much more than zero interest in fusion.
Ray Brown: good jazz players. But, geez, how many times does a person need to hear those same tunes. What are these guys saying that hasn't been said a thousand times before? My definition of (and to quote our resident New Age aficionado) "stereotypical jazz". I am left with the question, why?
1975 next.
|
Czarivey, glad you enjoyed those clips. ECM is a fantastic label with some of the best production standards. Amazing catalogue of well recorded and very interesting music. More to come.
|
****Strange comments from a Classical player. Remember it the next time you play Mozart, or Beethoven, or Bach, or............ well you get the drift.****
Actually, Rok, it’s not a strange comment at all. It’s a comment heard often among players and would be heard even more often if ALL that classical players were to play were music from one period; one of the reasons for musical diversity in orchestras’ programming. What makes the difference is that orchestras program not just Mozart, Beethoven and Bach, but also Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoengerg, Lutoslowski, Adams.......well, you get the drift.
What perhaps I wasn't clear about and what I meant with ****what are those guys saying that hasn't been said a thousand times before?**** is that it's not just the tune choice but how they are being played. Of course, its always possible to play a very familiar tune and a new and unexpected way. In that sense, Kleiber's Beethoven's 5th is completely different from Klemperer's. |
Don’t worry, I am well aware that CC was fiction. Besides, your statement contains other far more important fiction to comment on. I’m staying out of this one for now, so please leave me out of it. For the time being, I’d much rather post about fusion than fiction; 1975 is burning a whole in my iPad ☺️ |
1975: Fusion being what it is highlights what I think can be a subtle but still important distinction between the players: those that came to fusion mainly from the rock side of things and those that came to it from the jazz side. To my ears Jeff Beck, besides being a rock guitar God, is the most credible in fusion of all the other rock players who went to the genre. Amazing player with a very wide range of expression and what a tone! Classic record: https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLkCed3Lm7kme8h_-86GoEsZMNGV3bDxVh&v=LzJ2WA-ubMMThe Brecker Brothers release their debut album as a band. Consummate musicians who would be very influential in the evolution of the playing styles on their respective instruments. Coltrane inspired tenor playing and Miles infused electric trumpet playing in very interesting compositions: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MX3YpPpBydEThe next two records and two of my favorites from 1975 demonstrate how the lines between jazz and fusion, attempts at designation in general, can get blurred. I'm really torn about what to call them, besides simply really good music. I think they are unequivocally jazz, but also capture the spirit of the new genre: Pat Metheny releases his debut solo record with the great Jaco Pastorius on electric bass: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eciUMTPmzm0One of of my favorite unsung trumpet players: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hSAeK1zJOfc |
O-10, I have no doubt that you believe every word and that you would not have said it otherwise. I keep hoping that you will understand that it is always you that throws the first rock. Try not throwing the first rock and you'll see how nicely everyone can get along. 😘
|
Some further thoughts on the topic of Wynton:
Rok states:
****The criteria is drawn from his background. He Comes from a very distinguished and established musical family, in the birth place of jazz, New Orleans. Knows the history of the music, from it’s roots and beginnings. Is a virtuoso on his instrument. Holds the most important position in the world of Jazz today, leader at JALC. Is the media’s go to guy for all things Jazz. Very articulate. Very personable. Educated. Can talk about, explain, and teach the young about the music.****
Everything that Rok says is true. However, notice the conspicuous absence of a comment about his jazz playing. It would be an exaggeration to quote the old adage "those who can’t, teach", but I think it’s important to put Wynton’s sheer credibility as a jazz player as part of the backdrop before accepting everything that the guy says as gospel or that he has THE definition of jazz.
There is an interesting irony in what Wynton has accomplished in all the ways already described. Here we have an art form that has been traditionally and staunchly resistant to the rules of "the establishment" and things like "jazz education"; a music which is deeply about self expression and soul. Yet, Wynton, himself, has become "the establishment". He holds, as Rok points out, the highest "position" in jazz. Who woulda thunk? A "position" in jazz? When and how did that happen?
What the purists don’t want to accept is that you can’t stop the evolution of the art form (any art form); it is always a reflection of the times. The purist thinks that he is "protecting" the art form by blanketly (?) rejecting the new. I think Wynton can take much credit for keeping the flame of tradition alive. However, one has to ask oneself the question? Ultimately, what does the most damage to art in the overall scheme of things? To try to keep the flame of tradition alive by rejecting the new directions that the art form takes; directions which are a natural part of its process. Or, to accept the new directions with the knowledge that accepting the new doesn’t have to mean forgetting about tradition, while holding the new up to the same standars for defining excellence. By doing the latter, what you end up doing is bringing a larger and younger audience to the art form who will end up discovering the traditional. There is always room for the new and the old, and excellence is not defined by whether it is new or whether it is old.
|
Jafant asks:
****Over what subject matter?****
Jazz; or, more specifically, the idea that the music that Metheny and (late) Miles played was not jazz.
****Why?****
Its actually quite simple. In the case of Miles, because it was Miles who first criticized the young Wynton, who was being touted as the next big thing, because (and to quote Miles) "he ain't saying shit". It is only human nature that there would be some resentment there on the part of Wynton. Obviously, I can't get inside Wynton's head, but I do agree with the assessment of many in the jazz community that Wynton's rep as an important jazz PLAYER was seriously overstated. This has been commented on many times here and certainly elsewhere. Wynton is a force of nature as virtuoso trumpet player, champion of jazz and its roots, jazz educator, and more; all of that is undeniable and he deserves tremendous credit. However, in my opinion and that of many, Miles was right; he just doesn't have "the thing". His jazz is impressive for what he can do with a trumpet, not for his ability to tell a story when he improvises. He has built an empire around the "preservation" of traditional jazz. I believe he is totally sincere; but, as with the rare well meaning politician, the lines get blurred and it's only natural to fall into the trap of condemning what does not fit his formula.
****Coming from Wynton, it cannot be ignored.****
Of course it can be. It usually isn't ignored; however, not being ignored doesn't necessarily mean being correct. |
Ghosthouse, thanks for the Andy Summers clip; I enjoyed it. |
Food for thought (hopefully): There is a viewpoint that says that Donald Trump has no intention of building a wall. All politicians, however well-intended or deluded, sometimes say things that they know will have to be amended over time in order to "gain some traction". From Wynton’s own website: ****Two rising stars of jazz will lead the Miles and ‘Trane celebrations in Dizzy’s Club Coca-Cola. On May 13 – 15 at 7:30pm, trumpeter Keyon Harrold – called “the future of the trumpet” by Wynton Marsalis – will lead an expansive exploration of Miles Davis’ music in Iconic Miles Davis. Like Davis, Harrold is an eclectic, genre-hopping, and convention-spurning musician whose music ranges from unadulterated bebop and straight-ahead jazz to electronically-infused R&B and hip-hop.**** Hmmmm.......interesting! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oaGIbgNOUFcJazz?: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qtZiVpwrPhY |
Easy, O-10, lets not exaggerate; not the only time we've agreed. I did think you were pretty good doing that rain dance 😅 |
C’mon Rok, we’re all big boys (and girls?). It IS possible to have interesting discussion about something without complete agreement. There was no "bashing" in anything I wrote. However, in that comment is found the real issue; the swing (pun) to an "all or nothing" attitude. Wynton is great in so many ways. But is he deserving of total and complete adulation and worship? Is there no room for disagreement about specific areas?
Me and O-10, "birds of a feather"? Yikes! I don’t think so. We may agree about Wynton in a very general sense, but that’s about it. What I mean is, I don’t consider Wynton’s playing "stereotypical" AT ALL (!). I (and many) just don’t think his jazz playing is very interesting by the standards set by the great jazz players of the past.
Ellington:
Fantastic! Your description of that music is spot on. The Duke was brilliant.
|
****Stay tuned****
Nah! He doesn't pay enough ☺️
|
Acman3, loved the Herlin Riley clip. It should be pointed out that Riley is a member of the JALC orchestra and that many of the personal projects that the individual members of that orchestra are involved with are very forward looking; drawing from the past, but definitely in the present and pushing ahead.
|
Fantastic interview clips, Acman3. They should be required watching for all on this thread; the Crouch/Mtume debate in particular. Here's part two of that: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jAtaxon9t5gIts late so I'll check out and comment on the music clips tomorrow. Thanks! |
Before moving on to fusion in 1976, I thought it would be good to look at some of what was happening in (unequivocally) jazz: Second only to Freddie, Woody Shaw, is my favorite of the more recent trumpet players. This record features one of the truly unsung alto saxophone heros Frank Strozier: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kf5txz0Bh-EHis last recording while still in Europe and making his acclaimed return to the USA. One of the true giants and the epitome of relaxed swagger in playing style. Straddles a fine line between relaxed and painfully behind the beat. Love Dexter: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9XBvM9WbMjcWhat was I thinking?! I missed this one for 1975: Beck has already been mentioned; monster! Dave Sanborn would influence the way the alto saxophone was played by countless young players. Even the diehard jazz guys can be heard to have Sanbornisms in their playing. As an interesting aside, Sanborn considers Stevie Wonder's harmonica playing one of his main influences:: https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL61q9XLJ_eZCCacgEzQeh2GemoyYvdJyl&v=qRmEpnyNeJIAcman3, Holdsworth!....holy shit! Thanks. |
O-10, you flatter yourself. I agree that what is stereotypical to one person may be something else to another person; back to that in a moment. Let's get this one out of the way:
You are absolutely correct, having points of disagreements is not "throwing rocks"; but, as usual, you misconstrue what the issue was and is. The throwing of rocks (which was your phrase, btw) was not and is not having points of disagreement; it is the style and attitude used while disagreeing. You tend to have a very provocative style as demonstrated by your unnecessary reference to me in a discussion that I had no part in; and your admonition that I "not post that CC is fiction". Why do you make the assumption that I would? If you cannot understand that that comment/admonition is provocative then I can't help you further. THAT was the "first stone thrown" by you that I referred to; and what you often do btw, as exemplified by the fact that here we are, after many new and interesting posts and comments about music, and you choose to, instead of moving on, to bring up that nonsense again. I rest my case.
Now, what is "stereotypical"? Who knows? You coined the phrase. It probably means something different to each of us. My comment was simply that Wynton's playing did not fit MY definition of "stereotypical"; a silly notion to begin with. It is meaningless to throw out vague terms like that at the exclusion of some substantive description of what is meant. Concerning my comment re Wynton the great irony is that it is the absence of a strong sense of what the "stereotypical" hallmarks of good jazz improvisation are that are missing in his playing. Additionally, and even more ironic given the recent discussion is that one of the most discernible and interesting influences in his playing (particularly his early recordings) is.....are you ready?......Miles. How ironic is that?
Now, your self-flattery.
****that's because the other person hasn't heard as much jazz, consequently, what's old hat to me, is new to you, and you don't recognize it as "stereotypical"****
The obvious retort is "how do you know" that I haven't listened to as much jazz? O-10, if you feel the need to pump yourself up by thinking that yours is bigger than mine I couldn't care less; but, I assure you that Panonica would not agree 😜. And this claim coming from someone who proudly admits to not having or having had any interest in pre-swing, swing, big band jazz, any "before Bird" jazz. Yikes!
1976 coming up. |
****Frogman, you are one of the most interesting individuals I have ever encountered***
Why, thanks O-10!
Re your examples: I didn't confuse anything; I simply took your comments at face value as I'm not a mind reader. Try being a bit clearer going forward if you want to avoid confusion. Anyway, I hope your day turns a little less boring.
I am very intrigued by Wynton's use of cliches. Let's make things interesting. Could you please post some examples of what you mean? Specific spots in recordings of his solos?
Thanks!
|
"Change is the essential process of all existence." - Spock
👽
|
|
I am afraid that I am not doing Return To Forever's (Chick Corea) "Romantic Warrior" justice with the lack of some commentary. This recent romp through Fusion has led to my revisiting some of these records and I have to say that this record is an absolute masterpiece of the genre. Amazing compositional values from one of the most creative minds in contemporary music (including jazz-jazz), Chick Corea. This should be approached like one approaches listening to a symphony. Elements of Baroque music can be found along with strong rock and traditional jazz fusings. Just like Kind Of Blue is often cited as possibly THE record to play for someone who has never heard jazz, this could be my pick for demonstrating the genre Fusion to the curious. I recommend listening to it beginning to end. Even if you generally don't like Fusion, give it a shot and see what you think at the end of the ride. Their last record as a band: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=giup9k87MMo |
Rok, you and O-10 still don’t get it: THE GENRE DOESNT MATTER! Is it good music or not? That’s what matters; and whether it is good music or not does not depend on whether any one of us likes it or not. Now, a few clarifications:
Enthused? I am enthused by any good music in any genre. It was O-10 who brought up fusion as a genre to explore. And, yes, contrary to what he said after the fact, he suggested exploring the genre even before determining (unbeknownst to me) that it is I who should "lead". Anyone who really cares to verify this timeline need only go back over O-10’s posts. But, thats not really important, I really don’t care about any of that and O-10 and I don’t need to argue about that as far as I am concerned. I saw it (somewhat reluctantly) as an opportunity to explore a new genre and share and discuss some interesting music. O-10 then decided (I think for reasons that are not really important to discuss as far as I am concerned) that the discussion should be ended. I was already in, let’s say, a fusion frame of mind and so decided to continue exploring it. So, what’s the bottom line? :
****Good grief!!! They’re everywhere, they’re everywhere!!!!****
Pretty good bottom line if you ask me. I hope this doesn’t rub anyone the wrong way, but it needs to be said: Good grief!!! How many times do we need to hear about Grant Green!!! Again, bottom line: new music, interesting discussions/debates, new posters. Not too shabby! The big picture:
From my vantage point it is incredible that a listener cannot "find something good to say about fusion". There’s bad fusion just like there is bad jazz of the "ding, ding-a-ding, ding, ding-a-ding" type that is what is mostly discussed here. So what? But, to not be able to appreciate at least SOME of what a tour de force like "Romantic Warrior" has to offer is a shame. The level of craft is astounding and the level of the compositional values is outstanding; there is much to appreciate even if we much prefer other genres. To me, it’s far more productive and positive to, instead of saying, "the 70s were a bad year for music", to instead say "I can’t relate to the music of the 70s"; keeps the door open to growth. But that’s just me; and for whatever it may be worth to anyone else, it’s also the attitude of the overwhelming majority of musicians.
****One never knows............ Do one?****
You haven’t been paying attention.
Btw, O-10, I’m NOT picking on you, I just think one should be careful about making comments that are not factual. First of all, "My Spanish Heart" IS fusion; and Corea didn’t "dump" fusion at all after that recording. Check out his Elektrik Band recordings.
1977 coming up soon. |
Rok, you're grasping at straws. Hey, no hard feelings.
|
O-10, the last thing I want you to do is lie about any of this; your honesty is far more interesting. "Obsession": please allow me to remind you that it was you who wanted to go into fusion "in depth". Once again the problem is that there is no grasp of just how deep this stuff (any music) runs and you talk about it as if you do grasp it.
Rok, I expected better from you. From the standpoint of logic alone, since it was I who pointed out to you what you describe about one soloist picking up where the other left off, something I did because you were not capable of hearing (recognizing) it for yourself, does it not follow that you should perhaps, just perhaps, give some (just a tinzy wins y bit) of credence to what I am now saying about this music? Makes sense to me. Now, let’s put logic aside and let’s look at the facts of the matter:
A soloist picking up where the other left off was an example of just ONE solo in that JALC example. It is ONE way that a soloist can start a solo, and a good and interesting way, but NOT the only way. If that were the only valid way then you can go ahead and deem about 90% of the "jazz-jazz" solos posted in this thread as bs; not a reasonable proposition, I am sure you would agree. The majority of great solos don’t do that. Now, the really good stuff:
The reason that you didn’t hear that particular solo technique (and, yes, it IS the dreaded "technique") in the Corea music, and assuming your perception abilities have increased dramatically since the JALC clip was posted (if so, you’re very welcome, btw) is that in the Chick Corea music most of the music is "through-composed" (Wiki, look it up). That is what I meant when I said that the music should be approached like a symphony. Much of what you hear in that music is not improvised; it is part of the composition and within the framework of that composition there is room for improvised solos. In that way, it is like Duke’s jazz suites with "movements" within which and between which the soloists improvise. The soloists don’t follow each other in the more typical and simpler way, so there would be no opportunity for the soloists to even do what you point to. Apparently you thought that what was part of the composition was soloing. Now, the REALLY important stuff:
Sadly, not much new. Wholesale panning of an entire genre that, obviously, many on his thread find value in; and, instead of simply expressing dislike it is put down in insulting ways. Nice.
And btw, Johnny Dodds, Dexter, Martial Solal (!!) and others as well and nary a peep. Go figure.
1977 coming up. |
Of course my opinion can be challenged; I welcome it. I have clearly said that I have no issue with you or anyone else not liking this or any other music. However, you made a case for why the music had no merit by using an example that had no merit. Where's the challenge? That you don't like it? As I said, nothing wrong with that; but, a pretty feeble challenge.
|
O-10, like you, I don't mean this to be offensive. If you want an honest answer, please try again because I have no idea what it is your asking. I hope it's not what it appears you're asking, because if it is, it is one of the most nonsensical things I have ever read. Equivalent to: what on earth does that mean?
|
Rok, like you said we are all entitled to our opinions; and my opinion is that you've got it all wrong. But, let me get this straight, fusion would not suck if it weren't considered jazz. I get it now. |
Trying to follow your logic and not having much luck; help me out please.
****But, Fusion still sucks, unless, it's not considered Jazz, then it's just another genre. ****
So, from that comment and your examples I gather that you're saying that the genre fusion doesn't suck: it's just that jazz players playing it make it suck? Or simply calling it jazz makes it suck? Why am I following this logic? Let's see:
Funk doesn't suck and James Brown doesn't suck.
Opera doesn't suck and Placido doesn't suck.
James Brown singing opera sucks.
Placido singing funk sucks.
We are in agreement so far. Now,
Chick Corea plays great jazz.
Chick Corea playing fusion sucks. Or is it?:
Fusion sucks because Chick Corea plays it.
Herbie Hancock plays great jazz.
Herbie playing fusion sucks. Or is it?:
Fusion sucks because Herbie plays it.
Jeff Beck doesn't suck.
Jeff Beck is not a "jazz" player.
Jeff Beck playing jazz sucks. But,
Jeff Beck playing fusion doesn't suck.
Fusion played by Jeff Beck doesn't suck.
Am I getting warm?
|
marqmike, you are welcome and thanks for the post. I agree with you that the bickering is unfortunate. It is completely unnecessary and could be avoided if everyone would be more mindful of what you wrote: its music that "communicated to this soul"; nicely worded. I can't even begin to count the times that have called for not putting down others' music preferences. We all have types of music that we don't like as much as others or not at all and can say so; but there are very different ways of saying it.
|
jzzmusician, no need to apologize, classical music discussion is not new to this thread. Reich's Minimalist piece Music For 18 Musicians is one of the most interesting contemporary pieces written; almost like being in a dream state for an hour. Your description is exactly right; it illustrates development beautifully. Particularly fascinating is the use of the human breath to create rhythmic pulses. Thanks for that and glad you enjoyed Martial Solal.
|
I guess I will have to start charging royalties for the use of the word 😊. Of course, had the OP been reading carefully what has been written instead of always looking for a way to put some sort of negative slant on the topic that he, himself, brought to the table and now claims to not like (for reasons of allegiance more than musical, btw) he would notice that what jzzmusician wrote is exactly what I wrote previously; at least once.
Great clip jzzmusician; and your commentary is exactly right. Machito and his orchestra were one of the greatest of the Latin bands; and, of course, Dizzy is a great fit.
1977 in fusion coming up; sandwiched between Acman3's great post of DiMeola's Classic 1976 record and Alex's 1978 Jack DeJohnette, who for consistency as an artist has few peers. Amazing drummer and classic ECM recording.
Beautiful clips by Rok of The Duke. Those and the Weston clips made me think of the subject of "influence"; the influence of the music and style of one player on others. The Ellington clips highlight what a brilliant musician he was and what a phenomenal band he had. Listen to the impeccable ensemble playing with the beautiful sense of blend with matched vibrato; all the while letting the unique sounds of the key players (Hodges, Carney) come through. A LOT of nuance in their playing creating a velvety sound with that great sense of swing. Before anyone gets worked into a tizzy I will preface these comments as a point of interest;THIS IS NOT WYNTON BASHING:
Duke's band makes clear why, eventhough Wynton deserves tremendous credit for "keeping the flame alive" (in a way) as Rok says, why I when I listen to Duke's recordings and then to Wynton playing the same music I am always left with the feeling of "why?". Why listen to Wynton's band playing this music when I can listen to Duke; just not on the same level. Of course, that's not the only thing Wynton's band plays. Thanks for the great clips, Rok.
The above and Randy Weston make a case for why "influence" needs to be organic. Alex makes a comment that I agree with. I prefer Randy Weston's earlier recordings; they ring true to what HIS musical persona is. In the intro to the later "jk blues" one hears a clear McCoy Tyner influence and on that and other later an overall Horace Silver influence with some Ahmad Jamal thrown in. I don't hear Monk (?!) at all as Rok does; perhaps it's the presence of Booker Irvin that is why he makes the association.
I wish I could share the enthusiasm for Hugh Masekela. I don't care for his brand of Africa meets West music which often ends up sounding like mediocre Smooth Jazz to me. I find him to be a pretty good flugelhorn player with some problems as an instrumentalist; shaky intonation and limited technical facility compared to the greats on the instrument. Greatest ever? Not in my book. "Stimela": Yikes! Barry White goes on a safari. Not my cup of tea.
1977 soon. Is that applause I hear? 😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃
|
You bring up something interesting. Sorry, it IS like smooth jazz as far as the music and music values go. The interesting thing I refer to and which is something that goes to the bigger picture of what it is that makes some music appeal to some. The message of the music as expressed through lyrics and even the music in the context of the societal issue that it is trying to express may not be "smooth" (apartheid), but, no matter how relevant that issue may be doesn’t necessarily make it good music in its totality. Of course, we have to take into account our own individual emotional association with the music or its message. Good music is defined by the quality of the message as well as the quality of the craft. To my ears, smooth, easy on the ears, whatever, his craft falls short. Will post some flugelhorn when I have some time. For starters think about the "easy on the ears" music that he plays and the demands that it presents (not!) on the player. It’s all a matter of degree. He can play nicely on some things even with the instrumental shortcomings I mentioned. Navigating the changes for Donna Lee or Lush Life? I’d rather go on that safari.
|
Your last post:
Sorry, you're argument doesn't hold water. Apples and oranges. Don't knee jerk react; think about this, it's very interesting stuff. First of all, I was talking about Wynton's band and the way they play that music compared to Duke's band. As far as Wynton the player goes compared to Freddie and Harrel? Simple: both Freddie and Harrel say something when they improvise; to my ears. Wynton doesn't. |
I doubt I called a comparison of three players ridiculous; I would never do that. Feel free to post my comments and your and we’ll revisit that. However, and probably the reason for my comment, is your calling Tom Harrel a noisemaker; THAT is ridiculous. One of the best flugel players btw. And so is Freddie. No question Art Farmer is. |
O-10, cut it out, please! I will make this brief. I have no interest in responding to YOU per se; in fact, I would much prefer to not have to, unfortunately. You refer to me in a "conversation" that supposedly I "shouldn't" be part of, but you object to my chiming in; that makes sense (not). Now, please go to my very first comments about the definition of fusion; you will find your answer there for my comments to jzzmusician.
It was Rok who referred to HM as the best ever flugel player; I disagree.
Barry White:. If you can't understand that I can't help you. Rok did.
"Rok, call him out!" - I rest my case re motivation. |
