Ghosthouse, I don't mind; although I usually try and not get into it too much here. I started playing a musical instrument (accordion) at age five. At age twelve I started playing and studying clarinet; soon followed by saxophones and flute. I attended music conservatory and have not done anything professionally except play music (and some teaching) for almost forty years in a variety of genres and mostly in NYC. Listened to this today (again). I love this classic and very influential record by one of the greatest players in contemporary music. Inna's search for newer contemporary jazz made me think of it although the record is over forty years old; but, like "Bitches Brew", I don't think it has been bettered in its genre. The tune "Sly" kills me everytime I hear it. We all have our preferred genres. For me, what turns me on about a performance is a very high level of musicianship: the genre doesn't matter. As far as the core music values of musical interaction between the players and rhythmic groove it doesn't get much better than this, imo.. If nothing else, listen to the four minutes of Herbie's solo beginning at 5:25: the band is on fire and Harvie Mason sounds incredible: http://youtu.be/ngi_qHGsVsU |
Ghosthouse, Hancock is a giant and still going strong. He can play credibly in just about any genre including Classical; and as you say, very prolific. "squawking chicken", that's very funny and I can see (hear) why that came to mind. But, that's some funky chicken! You're correcf, it's clavinet. I kinda like it. My guess is that it's an overdub by Herbie of the repetitive syncopated rhythm; works for me. The "reedy sounding instrument" is Bennie Maupin's soprano saxophone. Very funky player with a rough-around-the-edges tone but great feel. His tenor and bass clarinet are very good also. Enjoyed the clavinet retrospecrive; thanks. I posted Herbie's "Takin Off" recently, but was not aware of any alternate takes; thanks for that. Freddie Hubbard is probably my favorite trumpet player. Check out Oliver Nelson's "Blues And The Abstract Truth" for what I think is one of the best trumpet solos on record. You may find this interesting: http://www.afka.net/Articles/1995-01_Tmershi_Duween.htm |
|
Ghosthouse, re the Blue Note Concert video and your observations: ****I'd like to know, at the very end, what they are kind of laughing about. He has an almost apologetic look on his face as he turns to Joe Henderson after the finish. The ending on his second solo is a little (anti-climactic?) if not down right odd. Hancock is kind of laughing a little too. **** First of all, I agree that Hubbard'soloing is insane; as usual. He is definitely a player worth exploring and has been covered here fairly well. Most would agree that he was one of the greatest; he is my favorite. My interpretation of your observations are these: Great performance. Masters at work. There is also a subtle sense of "seriousness" in this performance. Imo, this is a result of their knowledge that this will be recorded and videotaped; their demeanor is pretty controlled and even their attire immaculate. These guys had played this tune probably countless times; together and in other lineups. They know the tune inside out and I suspect that the prep for the performance was not much more than discussing the order of the solos and establishing that the tune will end with a long fade-out, as in the original recording; and, possibly a (partial?) runthrough at the soundcheck. The laughter you notice is probably not so much humor as much as approval of what has just happened; perhaps with, in fact, a bit of humor over the fact that Freddie and Joe decided to play during the fade-out. In the original version only the rhythm section plays during the fade-out. In situations like these, with a tune without a more structured ending, the band is not always quite sure how the tune will end and is left to the spirit of the moment; a good thing, imo. I don't think that it's Freddie's solo that is anticlimactic as much as the fact that fade-outs tend to be anticlimactic. Check out this version with a different lineup and a VERY different feel and attitude. Notice how they are having a lot of FUN with lots of unabashed laughter all the way around (put aside for a moment the inferior audio/video and the fact that you are not a fan of the soprano). The feel-good attitude is infectious (love Omar Hakim!). This version does have a "written" ending; no fade-out. I am not suggesting that this is a "better" performance at all; just different. Also notice how the tempo of this version is quite a bit faster than the Blue Note Concert version. Interestingly, they are both slower than the original: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JixfzsQWZ8cOriginal: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8B1oIXGX0Io |
As they say, there is a reason there are vanilla and chocolate ice creams.
Inna, if it can be said that the whole point of music (art) is to elicit emotions, your last two posts succeed at the highest level; for me, in diametrically opposed ways. That Shawn Lane is an accomplished guitarist is undeniable; that his take on music (the "blues"?) is in a different universe than mine is also undeniable. The two words that come up for me when I listen to that clip are "ugly" and "desperation". That he was, as you point out, close to death is probably one of the reasons why. I am not saying his music is not good, only that I would rather have a colonoscopy (sorry) than listen to his playing.
While I can’t say that I would rather have a....well, let’s not go there again 😊....than listen to Jesse Cook, that brand of syrupy, World Music(ish), lightly Flamenco-infused style, while very pleasant, just doesn’t do it for me. Perhaps I am missing the sarcasm in your "masochistic" label. I will give Shawn Lane another try when I have the wherewithal. Thanks for the clips. |
Haste makes waste. Correction: in my comments about Cantaloupe Island I should have written "notice how both versions are FASTER than the original". Sorry about the typo. |
Inna, I have no doubt that it was not your intention; apology if my comment suggested that. The tasteless attempt at humor in my comments was a visceral reaction to that clip. From that standpoint, I would say that the music succeeded. |
****I wonder if Frogman has it in his collection?**** Funny you should ask; prescient, actually! We have a cabin in the country. One of our closest "neighbors" deep in the woods has been an abandoned house with completely overgrown grounds, a roof that is literally caving in and letting the rain in. Doesn’t seem as if anyone had been in there for many years and there are posters from the Sheriff’s office on the door. About a year ago, our dog Artie decided to wander off into the woods and chased a wood chuck into the garage of this house by squeezing himself under the garage door. He would not come out of the garage and I was forced to pry the door slightly open and squeeze myself in and retribe my beagle. When inside the garage and after locating my dog I noticed, to my amazement, three long shelves holding lp’s. I couldn’t resist and I went throught the lp’s. Most were in horrible condition, covered with dust and debris. There, amongst the Grand Funk Railroad, Bee Gees and Mantovani Orchestra records were the only two that I was remotely interested in: Cat Stevens "Tea For The Tillerman" and, yes, Santana "Abraxas".........I did the unthinkable. Oh my God, I lost sleep that night.......I took them!!! In terrible shape, but it was kind of fun revisiting those two records that I listened to so many times while in High School forty five years (!) ago in various states of mild inebriation. The feeling of nostalgia was great. It also made it starkly clear why I never replaced those records after losing, or.....them. I like Santana "Abraxas", but, to be blunt and brief, I have no interest (or time) to listen to it when there are so many records of the caliber of music by Coltrane, Stravinsky, Miles, Herbie Hancock and many of the hundreds of records that have been discussed here. It is music evocative of a certain period in popular music and features Santana’s soulful playing; but, in the scheme of music at large, not on a particularly high level compositionally nor instrumentally......for me. I feel no need to buy a replacement copy. So, O-10, I did have the record in my collection while a teenager (😉) and, recently, for about two weeks until guilt got the better of me and I actually took the records back for the woodchucks to use as they please. So, I hope that answers your question. Now, O-10, why must you always personalize matters? ****It really takes some gall to make a statement like that; who told him he was qualified to make such a definitive statement?**** I find it particularly curious that someone who hides behind the "it’s subjective" mantra should have a problem with someone else’s opinion. What’s good for the goose....." No? "Deeply offended"? Really? Eventhough I acknowledged the good aspects of that record? I will limit my response to that to question marks lest I, myself, make things personal. O-10, there is nothing that is not accurate about what I wrote about Zappa/Santana. I have no desire to argue with you about music without, at least, a semblance of desire on your part for substance and depth as has happened so many times previously when there has been disagreement. I could outline in substantive detail why I made the comment that I made; if there is a sincere desire on your part to understand it. In the meantime, I will point you in the direction of Santana’s own comments in a link that I posted and which, apparently, you didn’t bother to read. His comments corroborate exactly what I wrote: http://www.afka.net/Articles/1995-01_Tmershi_Duween.htm****I told him many times that music was "subjective" but I see it still hasn’t stuck.**** In response, I’d like to, with your permission and partly in jest, use your own words: ++++It really takes some gall to make a statement like that; who told him he was qualified to make such a definitive statement? ++++ Of course, since YOU said it then it must be Gospel. But, .....wait!, I seem to recall a recent post of yours when, in a moment of clarity, you wrote: "music is both subjective and objective". |
I just noticed this comment and one that may answer my question above:
****To me, Zappa is just a name: "What do he play"?****
Are you serious? You feel you can comment on a musician and his craft without having heard him ?!
I have no words. |
|
It’s OK, O-10; I still like you. Honest question: how much of Zappa’s music have you listened to and how would you describe it? Did you read the interview in that clip? What was your interpretation of it?
Btw, I was not reacting to the "subjective" thing; that, I realize very well, is the expected fallback position. I was reacting mostly to the "gall" and related comments. I reacted because, one would think, a non-personal comment made by someone who one has interacted with about music for almost four years and someone who, in spite of differences of opinion, just, maybe just, might have something to say about the topic and be worthy of brief consideration; and, worthy of, at least, a request for explanation without taking matters to the nasty, negative, disrespectful place that you always seem hell-bent on taking matters. I understand full well why you react the way you do to some of my comments; and, it's not what it may always seem. I prefer to not go there as it serves no purpose in what this thread should be about; and, taking positions, fallback or not, is not what it should be about, imo. |
Ghosthouse, thanks for the "Jazz Pistols" clips. I agree with you that the playing is first rate; very tight with excellent rhythmic interaction. I particularly like the guitar player; lots of chops, inventive and with a very nice tone that reminds me a little bit of Scofield at times. I disagree that there are no musical ideas. Take the tune "Twenty"; musical idea No.1: the tune is in odd meter, in five (beats to the measure). On both tunes there is very interesting use of syncopation and changing tempos and grooves; very nice. The thing that was surprising to me, and I think it works, is that there is an easy quality to the way these guys play in odd meter (instead of the much more common and comfortable four) and this style in general that is a little disarming; a kind of understated quality. Most bands playing in similar styles dig into the rhythm a little more. While this may seem like a good thing always, in a way this can be a bit of a crutch for the performer; almost like when a player needs to tap his foot to the beat very strongly in order to keep the beat instead of simply feeling it in his internal clock. I like the lightness of the grooves. Very good drummer. I suspect that the title "Twenty" refers to twenty being a multiple of five; four sixteenth notes in each beat x five =20. Thanks for the introduction.
|
|
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9sn1NidtGUCheck out Christian McBride; incredible! Those guys Metheny and Brecker aren’t too shabby either ☺️ For anyone who hasn’t heard Metheny in a more straight ahead setting this may be a revelation. |
Be sure to check out the last link before your post for some amazing Metheny/Brecker. Great "Steps Ahead" clip; thanks. Probably my favorite Jazz-fusion band with an amazing ability to play in different styles, "Steps Ahead" began as simply "Steps" in the late 70's and as the rather informal project for Mike Manieri to feature his compositions. They had a regular gig at the, now gone, NYC jazz club "Seventh Ave. South". After several months of sold out gigs they released their debut live album which is perhaps my favorite of their records: https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtcApAVo7q1KfNaC2BrUh2EkCkHwHWwkNIn (I believe) 1980 Peter Erskine replaced Steve Gadd and Elian Elias replaced Don Grolnick. I posted this at least once before and features a nice version of the tune "Islands" in your clip: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PN8SAAMG8_oThe band has reformed and is currently playing a Steps Ahead Reunion Tour. Donny McCaslin is a good young tenor player with the impossible job of stepping (😉) into Mike Brecker's shoes (what a sad loss!). The band sounds good but doesn't have the amazing tightness of the old "Steps Ahead". On the other hand, Elian Alias sounds fantastic: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjk3pm8g2x0 |
As always, generalizations are fool’s folly. I challenge anyone to post an "old" guitar or tenor player playing the same "licks" as Metheny or Brecker played on the Jazz Baltica clip. |
"Bad taste"? Not at all. No reason to go there; we all have our preferences. Curious, you really liked the Pat Martino fusion record, did you listen to the live clip with Joey DeFrancesco? If so, what did you think of his playing in that style?. Here it is again: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cyqJwJzGB0g |
|
Never heard it described that way; funny 'though. Frankly, I'm not sure I care; I just know that the vast majority of it sucks. About the only genre of music that I find little value in....most of the time; some of it can be pleasant.
|
O-10, those are indeed beautiful records; glad we agree. The post was intended mostly for Ghosthouse as I would like to get a better sense of what he likes and doesn’t like in jazz guitar in order to put it all in better perspective so as to better understand his feeling that Metheny sounds "tired" in the recent clip.
Ghosthouse, nice comments. While I don’t agree that Metheny sounds tired and without conviction, my comments were not meant to suggest that his playing in that clip was an example of the greatest jazz guitar playing ever. I felt it would be interesting for those who have only heard him in his usual atmospheric, almost "New Agey" vibe to hear him in that setting. I do think that he doesn’t sound, tone-wise or ideas-wise, like anyone else; so, from that standpoint we don’t agree. I would still like to know, and more importantly, how you liked the performance as a whole; especially Brecker who is always the antithesis of tired.
One of the problems with sharing ideas in a necessarily limited venue like this is that it is always difficult to put the full meaning of our thoughts into words. Example: O-10 suggested, and I completely agree, that you should trust your own ears; iow, you don’t owe anyone an explanation of why you don’t like something (at least, that’s how I would explain it). Now, and of course, if there is going to be dialogue, without explanations dialogue is pointless. Here’s the bigger issue: I am not sure wether his comments were in reference to that particular clip or were general comments about one of his pet peaves, "stereotypical" jazz. This is not meant as a criticism of O-10 in any way; just a statement of fact. You and I agree that "straight ahead" Jazz by young players is not "automatically bankrupt" (great term). Why would it be? The Jazz in that clip is anything but "stereotypical"; hence my challenge for someone to post playing by older players that sounds like those guys. I don’t believe there is any. If we are talking about the level of intensity or commitment then that is a different story; those are values that apply to any style. Although I don’t like the term "stereotypical", were I to use it, it would apply to playing in a neo-swing, neo-hard bop style or things like the recreation of the music of Duke Ellington by bands like the LCJB. But even then, there is so much new music that can be considered hard-bop that is still far more adventurous harmonically and rhythmically than your typical Blue Note thing that it just makes the case for why that kind of label is fairly meaningless. I have always felt that we tend to paint these things with WAY too broad a brush. There is A LOT of nuance in Jazz that, in my experience, is often missed or overlooked in comparison to other genres where the visceral elements of the music are a bigger part of the overall aesthetic. As a possible example of what I mean:
You like Joey DeFrancesco’s "The Great Stream" solo more than Martino’s. Both are great solos by any standard, imo. DeFrancesco’s solo is undoubtedly more visceral. However, for me (and, I believe, from an objective point of view), while Martino plays within a narrower dynamic spread, I find his solo to have much more of what is acknowledged to be one of the hallmarks of great improvisation: musical logic. The kind of logic that ties his improvised musical ideas in a musical stream (😉) of notes from beginning to end; each new idea relates to the one that came before it so that the solo can stand on its own as a composition. DeFrancesco’s solo, great and exciting as it is, loses that focus at a few points and the ideas don’t relate to each other as completely and as logically. There are a couple of moments when, to my ears, he’s trying to figure out where to go next; not so with Martino. Anyway, just some thoughts on what rocks my boat. I love it when someone wants to explore new music and particularly when it is done, like you do, with an open mind and far more curiosity and eagerness than ego; kudos to you.
Inna, while our musical tastes are very different in some ways (not all) I, as perhaps you already know, completely agree with your premise about the objective/subjective issue. It’s too bad that you don’t find enough of interest here and I would only point out that on this thread the focus on particular styles is cyclical; perhaps "in a few weeks" the discussion topics will be more to your liking. I must say, however, that I find it curious that you were drawn to this thread when, by your own admission, you "stopped listening to classical jazz a long time ago". If you feel so inclined, I would be interested in more of your thoughts about the objective/subjective issue. Btw, Joe Zawinal is one of my favorite musicians.
Regards to all. |
Certainly is good for the soul; and one of the reasons I have been on this thread for so long ......just kidding (mostly 😊). Loved the Flinstones! In case anyone cares: The well known theme song for "The Flinstones" is a "contrafact". A contrafact is a tune that uses the exact same chord progression of a pre-existing tune. The Flinstones theme uses the chord progression of George Gershwin's "I Got Rhythm"; a chord progression often referred to in Jazz parlance as simply "Rhythm changes". https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hByFDVwiQq8Now, try singing the Flinstones theme along with Sarah singing "I Got Rhythm"; it works! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5G7UIeYGq0k |
Ghosthouse, thanks for your comments. No offense taken. How could I possibly be offended that you didn't particularly like three of the records on most jazz guitar fans' "top ten" lists. Yikes! I am not really surprised that you didn't particularly like those records given what you have posted as your preferred guitar styles. As I, and O-10, have said previously "we likes what we likes"; no excuses necessary. What I would say is that I predict that as you listen to more and more jazz your opinion about those will change. A couple of further thoughts: While tone is certainly an important element of any jazz player's personal musical identity, for whatever it may be worth, it is dogma among players that it is a distant second to what the player is saying via phrasing and choice of notes; the nuances in his rhythmic feel and his harmonic vocabulary. From that standpoint, I am surprised that your comments focused almost entirely on tone. As far as the bigger picture goes, and maybe this is a "semantics" issue, there really is nothing "abstract" about any of that music;. ALL of it, including the improvisations, are within the harmonic frameworks of the "tune"with practically no straying from it (abstract). Nice clip of Frank Vignola. He's a great player who was "looked at" a while back and who is very active in the traditional swing scene. As far as the "breakneck tempos" go: that's bebop for ya. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zwXNB9kkTSg |
|
O-10, please re-read my post, I didn't say it was. |
One of my faves. GREAT alto sound; especially on stuff that leans more to pop. Don't hold it against Hank, Rok, but he was one of Dave Sanborn's biggest influences. Crawford, along with players like Maceo Parker (James Brown), created a style of alto playing that was bastardized by an entire generation of "Smooth Jazz" alto players. They play with an over-the-top "emotionality" that I can't stand. Tone that is nasal, whiny and with way too much vibrato; like the guy on that Billy Ocean clip. What these young players often don't know is that the style didn't start with Sanborn, it started with Crawford. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4nbouwehaMYhttp://jazztimes.com/articles/25671-hank-crawford |
O-10, great clip; loved it. What would I call it? R&B. Some would refer to some R&B as "soul jazz".
You said Hank Crawford was "soul jazz".
From Wiki (if you won’t take my word for it 😉):
++Soul music (often referred to simply as soul), is a popular music genre that originated in the United States in the late 1950s and early 1960s. It combines elements of African-American gospel music, rhythm and blues and jazz.++
Also from Wiki:
++Rhythm and blues, often abbreviated as R&B or RnB, is a genre of popular music that originated in the 1940s.++
What do both descriptions have in common? "Popular". Isn’t that what I wrote? Actually, I said "leans toward pop". But, neither would I call jazz. That’s not to say Crawford didn’t sometimes play jazz; he did. The influence of R&B players on pop and Smooth Jazz players is undeniable; which is what I wrote. Thanks for the great clip. |
Great suggestions by Alex, the Kenny Burrell clips in his second to last post are all excellent and leave no doubt as to why he is considered one of the giants of jazz guitar. Hardly "traditional" Jazz guitar, but I loved his Ivan Joe Jones clips the first time around and even more this time. Excellent clip with a great feel and live that "Manteca" quote by Rusty Bryant with that amazing gritty tenor sound. I have to get that record. Ghosthouse, glad you liked the Birelli Lagrene clips; lots more on YouTube. I don’t hear "sloppiness" in his playing. I don’t know if your comment is in reference to his more straight ahead playing (hollow body), his more Rock-oriented solid body playing, or both. I ask because he phrases differently in each style; appropriately so. In his playing on solid body I don’t hear anything that I would consider sloppiness (!). However, in his hollow body playing there is a quality that is perhaps what you refer to; although it is a musical choice in his phrasing style: In jazz phrasing (any instrument) there is a "technique" referred to as "ghosting" (😍) notes. This means that the note(s), within or at the end of the phrase, is implied and not actually sounded. If you look at transcriptions of solos you will see these notes in parentheses. Several times in his solos on hollow body he trails off dynamically at the end of phrases to the extent that you almost can’t hear the final notes. Perhaps that is what you refer to. As I have said previously, I commend your inquisitiveness and since you seem to be so open to suggestions I would, respectfully, suggest that you don’t let the analytical awareness get in the way of the emotional reaction. This relates to something that sometimes, and unfortunately, leads to silly arguments here: the idea that there has to be a devide between the analytical and the emotional (head/brain). Full emotional appreciation of any music does not have to mean absence of analysis; in fact, the two inform each other for a deeper appreciation of the music than is possible by staying in only one camp. Back to guitar and your question about Birelli’s hollow body tone: There is no ONE "traditional jazz guitar tone". While it is true that compared to a tone that leans more to, or is fully in, the rock or pop camp there can be quite a bit of variety within the "traditional" approach to jazz guitar sound. You prefer a less "sleepy" tone with a little more bite and is why I thought you might like Birelli’s hollow body tone. Nothing wrong with preferring that kind of sound, but tone is the only thing that defines what "traditional" is; what and how the player plays it defines it much more. As I said before, and I hope you don’t mind my saying so (again), I predict that as you listen to more and more "traditional" Jazz the less incisive tone approach will be less of a deal breaker for you. Here is another little known living player who is a bit of a hero to many guitar players amd who plays with a brighter, less muted and more incisive tone: https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLZClVvCqkpw3QeQGiBMnrpiP3tZpVENPQ&v=lMurkUZLHXY |
Yup, soprano sax. Beautiful soprano tone at that. In the scheme of the saxophone world not particularly unusual although very different from what we hear from the likes of Kenny G: nasal, reedy and obnoxious. While I shudder at the thought of including Coltrane in the same paragraph as Kenny G, even Coltrane's tone on soprano was an acquired taste: very aggressive and hard; still, in his case, perfect for his musical message. I think you recently mentioned the tune "Safari" by Steps Ahead. On that tune Michael Brecker plays soprano and sounds beautiful. This is one of my favorite jazz soprano players: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp1Ay0C36P0And, of course, the classic soprano solo by Gerry Niewood on this jazz-lite "hit"; very pretty soprano sound: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WtRxKRS0r8g |
strateahead, thanks for coming to the party. Great moniker which is, believe it or not, one of the reasons that I made a comment here a while back that I was skewered for. I suggested, with no hidden meaning, that there were many jazz fans in Agon that, "for various reasons", chose not to post on this thread; that we were not the only jazz fans on this forum. Your moniker, and some of your posts on other threads, were the giveaway. Nice comments and I hope you visit again soon; plenty of "food and drink" left at this party. |
|
Btw, you may find it interesting that DS cites Stevie Wonder's harmonica playing as one of his influences. Stevie's phrasing on the harmonica is killer.
|
Nice "segue", Ghosthouse, in light of the recent discussion re Sanborn/Crawford; don't know if it was intentional or not. The alto solo on that clip of Paul Butterfield's band is by none other than Dave Sanborn where he earned his stripes for several years before becoming the R&B/pop alto star that he became. That was his first record with the band and shows him still not fully developed as the stylist that he would become. Here is some more bogus blues 😉; I posted this not long ago. Recorded ten years later, Sanborn's tone is fully morphed into what became his signature edgy and overtone-rich sound: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B4GNci5koi8 |
My "bogus" comment was totally sarcastic and in jest, in response to Rok's bogus comment. I totally dig PB's band and the presence of DS in the band is the stuff of minor legend among saxophone players. Your ear is great as you picked up on the rawness of DS's sound. That's EXACTLY what works best in that music. If we think Sanborn sounds raw, check out the tenor player in the other clip I posted. Holy sh?t! Killer! Btw, I completely agree with your comments about being limited. |
I wonder (not!) what the reaction would be if someone were to suggest that black people can't play Classical music? Our perception of "authenticity" in any music cannot be separated entirely from our individual life experiences and resulting biases (and, in some cases, feelings of guilt). When you get right down to it, what is the difference, at their core, between the feeling conveyed by the blues as performed by the great black blues artists and the feelings in any traditional ethnic music of any other culture which expresses similar feelings about that people's troubles and woes. To my way of thinking "the blues" is universal. Anyone listen to Shostakovich or Lecuona lately? It's the blues....in their respective cultures.
++++“I'm a bluesman moving through a blues-soaked America, a blues-soaked world, a planet where catastrophe and celebration- joy and pain sit side by side. The blues started off in some field, some plantation, in some mind, in some imagination, in some heart. The blues blew over to the next plantation, and then the next state. The blues went south to north, got electrified and even sanctified. The blues got mixed up with jazz and gospel and rock and roll.”
― Cornel West, Brother West: Living and Loving Out Loud, A Memoir++++
++++I've said that playing the blues is like having to be black twice. Stevie Ray Vaughan missed on both counts, but I never noticed.
B. B. King++++
++++The Blues is Life.
-Brownie McGhee++++
++++Music is your own experience, your own thoughts, your wisdom. If you don't live it, it won't come out of your horn. They teach you there's a boundary line to music. But, man, there's no boundary line to art.
-Charlie Parker++++
|
|
****great blues song writer, Willie Dixon, said Blues is the Truth. I think he nailed it.****
Funny, I thought that what exactly what I was saying. Beyond that, I think my comments are fairly clear. It's late; maybe tomorrow. Btw, nice Dee Dee. Ferrell? Yikes! What was she thinking? Everything but the kitchen sink. I always ask myself when listening to a singer scat, what would that sound like coming out of a horn? Thanks for the clips.
|
Ghosthouse, no need to apologize as far as I am concerned. You are new to the thread and I assure you that as "drama" is concerned this "blues" episode didn't even move the needle. Feel free with what you write. As provocateurs go, you are a saint (so far 😊). I do hope you understand that my earlier comments were not critical of you in any way; au contraire.
Personally, I wouldn't mind one bit staying on the subject of the blues.
|
Thanks, Ghosthouse. You see....now you’re starting to get a good taste of the kind of bantering that goes on here; well, usually only when certain posters are active. Never take comments too personally. Rok is one of those individuals (not the only one here) who feels very threatened by commentary backed by irrefutable facts and logic which may show that some of his long-held ideas about music may be, juuuust may be, mistaken; or, at the very least, so tainted by personal bias that he feels the need to then be abrasive and insulting when confronted with disagreement. Recent example: He will completely bash SRV to the extent that he feels he just KNOWS that BB King’s praise of SRV is bogus; yet, he will post clips (for God knows how many times) of a third rate swing big band "(Sweethearts"), or ridiculous scat singing, or, or. Truth is, he wants to be considered the "Oracle Of Texas". This has been going on for close to four years, but I still like him 😘. He’ll never admit it, but deep inside he knows better.
You opened the door, Rok. I love you, man!
Ghosthouse, get the popcorn, watch what happens next.
|
Great Cannonball, O-10; thanks. My favorite alto player. This record with John Coltrane as co-leader is classic and features some of the best Cannonball on record. Check out Cannonball's opening solo break on "Limehouse Blues"; amazing! And, of course, the best version of the beautiful "Stars Fell On Alabama" (4:41) that I have ever heard: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EMY667lKfnM |
Well, THAT was a grounded and insightful response. As usual, Rok, you see what you want to see. I welcome disagreement supported by reason, logic; and, yes, a semblance of good taste. The "bs" is not the product of disagreement, it is the product of your abrasive, disrespectful style. No deluge, but I think the math makes the point. Moreover you conveniently overlook all those who haven't stuck around because you pissed them off. Just trying to help you, man 😊
|
Smart move, Ghosthouse. Will check out that live "Jazz Pistols" and report back. Thanks.
|
Rok, possibly your best written post ever. Unfortunately, with some serious issues in the area of content. First of all, Rok, you are the one who has decided to apply the term "Oracle"; and sarcastically at that. So, please feel free to demote me to whatever other designation you please. I don’t want nor like titles; especially silly ones like that.
No matter what you imagine to be or surmise are BB’s reasons for saying what he said about SRV, you have no way of knowing what is in his heart about him. I prefer to take him at his word and hence assume that this paragon of The Blues (BB) is, in fact, not a hypocrite and respects and believes enough in the art form to not be insincere with his accolades. The inconsistencies and contradictions in your stances about some of these issues are stark. You have posted those OK (and no more) clips of your idol Wynton Marsalis with Eric Clapton playing the blues more times than I can remember. Is Wynton, Oracle of all things jazz (to you), also a hypocrite? Certainly, there are in existence countless clips of Wynton’s band that don’t include Clapton. So, why?
That the "Sweethearts" overcame many odds during their time is not the issue here; the quality of their music is. It’s pretty good. Compared to the bands at the top of the big band scene at the time, bands like Duke, Basie, Goodman, Shaw and others, they are decidedly derivative and third rate. The mentioned bands had ground breaking composers and influential soloists that would do much to shape the genre and, as soloists, shape the direction of jazz as a whole. Name one player or composer associated with "The Sweethearts" that you can say that about. The novelty appeal was a huge part of their success. They were pretty good and no more. Third rate. If it makes you feel better....second rate (not!). Conservative thinker that you are would consider merit only, no? This whole issue makes my case about personal bias influencing our (your) outlook on pet issues.
Ferrell: Oh, I see, it was about PASSION. Sure thing. The ridiculous scatting didn’t count and was not part of this PASSION. Tasteless, over the top passion; I get it. And, oh yes, before I forget, very out of tune singing also, by the standards of great singers. C’mon, man, even the band in that clip is just ok. Just because a performer appears to be totally into the performace does not make it good. Facial contortions do not passion make. You like it, good for you; for me, fingernails on a chalkboard.
Now, the bigger picture (of this thread), Rok: I hope this little and latest squabble served some purpose for you; you apparently seem to need this sort of thing periodically. Personally, eventhough I will stand up to your abrasiveness and bs when directed at me, I find it all terribly wasteful. I know that you will always be right (in your mind). I don’t really mind that as I have no vested interest in "being right". What I do think is important is a modicum of respect and self control re personal issues when posting and addressing other participants; especially when disagreeing.
The issue of why there aren’t more posters on this thread has come up recently and previously. It is not that there aren’t more jazz fans out there; it is bs like this.
Cheers to you too (what did you think of Cannonball’s "Stars Fell.."?)
Edit: O-10, I just read your most recent post. As I am sure it is for you, my main interest is in the promotion and vitality of this thread about this great music. As countless times before, there are some basic flaws and inaccuracies in your statements. You insist in assuming that because someone can listen to music with the "technical" as part of the whole experience that the "emotional" is missed. That is complete and utter nonsense that serves only to buttress your choice to completely ignore technical considerations. You nor anyone else have a monopoly on appreciating the emotional aspects of music. As I wrote recently both things inform each other for an even deeper understanding. To suggest otherwise is simple defensiveness. I am not "forever" talking about the technical at all. I often do; but your aversion and close mindedness about it also shuts your mind to seeing how that is only a part of what I talk about. Moreover to suggest that you know how I "see" or hear music is simply arrogant and misguided. As I also said to Rok, as far as the bigger picture of this thread goes, I would encourage you to take a closer look at patterns over the life of this thread that point to when it is that there is more active participation from other members here in relation to the amount of silly bickering, clickishness, and judgmental comments like the ones you have just made; and, when it is that there is less participation and no new posters while the thread becomes not much more than a two way conversation between you and Rok. Just as with Rok, the inconsistencies and contradictions in your stance about some of this are stark. You rely on your "subjective" experience only, but are also quick to point out why someone else's feelings about an artist or performance may not be valid (example: "stereotypical"). So, in other words, only YOUR subjective opinion is valid, right? I see. I think we can do better than that. |
****What I don’t get is this, how can anyone like Adderley and The Jazz Pistols at the same time.****
Bingo!!! We have a winner!!
Problem is, the person who "doesn’t get it" considers that a positive thing and an asset instead of the limitation and narrow-mindedness that it is. Surliness is a common symptom of narrow-mindedness.
|
Ghosthouse, interesting Cannonball clip from his later period. Now THERE’s something one doesn’t hear too often, Cannonball on soprano saxophone. Btw, Mercy Mercy was not recorded in a nightclub; it was, in fact, recorded live in Capitol’s LA studio with a live audience. As the story goes, Cannonball was friends with the owner of "The Club" in Chicago and he wanted to give his friend’s club some free publicity; a pretty well documented "hoax". The giveaway? It sounds like a studio. You would never be able to get sound that good, clear and well balanced, especially the audience sounds, in a nightclub. |
O-10, we have been here so many times before that the recently used word "tedious" is just about perfect. Your most recent post is another example of what I can only describe as "The Twilight Zone". I will try, once again, to explain my positions on some of these isuues and, with any luck, perhaps they can be put to rest for a while; as I had hoped was the case before your most recent post.
My comments to Strateahead were sincere and without any hidden meaning; just as I said to him re my original comment to you about why others don't post. You seem hell bent on believing that I am making some underhanded insinuation about this when, in fact, you just said the same thing I did. What is that? That perhaps he, as you just said, has some reason for not posting; perhaps he's too busy. That's it, no hidden meaning. As you apparently forgot, my original comment was in response to a self-congratulatory comment by you about what a special little bunch we are for being the only jazz fans on Agon; the only ones hip enough to be jazz "Aficionados". I had the temerity to suggest that "no, we are not the only ones, there are others who choose to not post for various reasons". Well, all hell broke loose! I thought I was being reasonable and generous, but apparently you felt that I burst your bubble. Don't you see how childish this is?
My "insensitive" comments toward Rok: This one goes beyond The Twilight Zone into truly new frontiers. "Beam me up Scotty!". Let me see if I've got this right.... So, after Rok picks and starts a fight by denigrating my taste in music (not that I care what he thinks), and proceeds with his diatribe, you think I should have been more "diplomatic" towards him. Seriously? I assure you my reaction is not because I care what he thinks about my taste in music, but simply because I am tired, as many are, of his surliness; a surliness that you have always overlooked and protected. "Damn it, Jim, I'm a doctor, not an Aficionado!".
O-10, I DON'T think you should go to school, and while I always hope for intelligent dialogue with other posters, I don't post what I post just for your sake. If you want to understand it and would like me to explain it fine; if not, no problem. What IS a problem for me is the misinformation passed as fact, I see no reason to not correct it. Case in point:
I truly and honestly don't have a problem with you, or anyone else, using only subjective criteria when judging music. What leads to conflict is, as I have tried to explain many times, is that you and Rok have no problem whatsoever being critical of or dismissing, often in a very "insensitive" way, other posters' likes. However, when I express dislike of one of YOUR posted music clips and explain why I don't like it, all hell breaks loose. I have no problem with you feeling that there is, to quote you, "no right or wrong". However, this stance begs the questions: 1. why, then, do you feel it necessary to express dislike for anything?, and 2. why do you have a problem with my reasons for why I don't like something? If, as you claim, there is no right or wrong. I keep hoping you will see the contradiction (if not hipocracy) in this. The misinformation:
The idea that knowledge is an impediment to understanding or feeling the emotion in music. Perhaps this is true for you or someone else. I suppose there are personality issues (foe ALL of us) that come into play here that are best left for others to dissect. Again, I have no issue with you, or anyone else, believing that....for himself; as unfortunate as I may feel that is. However, if you are going to escalate matters to suggest, as Rok did, that I, or someone else, cannot "feel" music because of their quest for knowledge, I will take you to task (if I happen to have the energy at that particular moment). That is an utterly ridiculous stance that goes counter to the vast majority of thoughtful opinions on the matter. Your recent analogy re audio reviewers make my point. Audio reviewers? Really? Gearheads, long vilified for not caring about the music? That they say that worrying about gear (the technical) gets in the way of the music is the proof behind your assertion? A MUSIC critic saying that may carry some weight....maybe. But, a good music critic would never say that. A good music critic knows that knowledge about the technical enhances the appreciation of the emotional. Bottom line, O-10, as I asked you recently, why don't you practice what you preach? I respect your wish to, as you yourself have said many times, not learn anything about music. Why do you object to someone else's wish to learn more than that?
Anyway, over and out. I am done with this issue for now. Hopefully we can all get back to sharing music and ideas in a positive and respectful way. As someone who I hope is back soon (I mean that) likes to say:
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for that link Ghosthouse. You’re right, the sound quality is outstanding and lets me hear what a great bass player that guy is; something that was not nearly as apparent from the previous studio recording clips. |
I will answer the two questions asked by O-10 that are verifiable factually and leave the more, let’s just say, subject-to-opinion one for others, as there has already been a fair amount of "propaganda" expressed.
-The USA (not surprisingly since its an American art form), has far more jazz venues than any other country.
-Twenty years ago, and perhaps surprisingly, there were actually fewer jazz venues than there are today; in the USA, anyway. |
