****I know anything I say starts an argument, but Alex seems to be the least affected by the media hype, brain washers; by that I mean a person has to do independent research to find facts****
O-10, you are absolutely correct with one of the points in your comment; and, absolutely mistaken with the other. (") I don't want to start a new discussion ("), so I will leave it at that and, if it matters, you can figure out what I mean. A friendly sugestion for the better health of this thread and its main topic: stop baiting by throwing out little snippets of provocative commentary and then "innocently" running for the (music) hills; or, simply open up the discussion to the new topic and encourage respectful discourse. Iow, please consider staying clear of provocative topics; or not. Btw, the first sentence of this paragraph is simply an example of what I am talking about. To the hills myself:
"Loft Dance": A recording problem from ECM?! Unlikely, imo. I just listened to it again for the ?th time and I don't hear anything that I would consider a recording problem. I am sure you hear something there, so could you be please more specific about what you hear and describe it in more detail?
Rene Marie: Sure, I'll take you; as long as you promise to keep your "crowd surfing" to a minimum ☺️
|
Don't forget the Parmesan cheese...oh, yeah, and a little black pepper 😛 |
O-10, thanks for the clarification on "Loft Dance"; glad you liked it.
|
Alex, I too respect your opinions and expressed thoughts about music and have enjoyed dialoguing with you on that subject. I have found you, first and foremost, to be open minded on the subject of music even while having well defined tastes. This most recent and minor (and it is, in the scheme of things) conflict is a perfect justification for my suggestion to O-10 and example of why we should stay clear of topics that are potentially provocative and not directly related to the subject of this thread. However, I find your reaction to recent comments both duplicitous and disingenuous. Allow me to explain:
I did not "take O-10's bait", I had no intention to get embroiled in another discussion about politics. I suggested that he refrain from his occasional tendency to bait and provoke so as to avoid precisely what is happening as I write this. Why duplicitous?
You object to my involving you in a another discussion about politics. If that offended you, my apology. However, I need to point out that you had already involved yourself with your "torture chambers in Guantanamo" comment. Although I doubt it, perhaps your comment was meant solely as humor; not a topic that has much room for humor. Not being from this country and perhaps because of your political orientation, you may not be aware of the fact that this is a political topic that is highly "charged" in this country; however, I am sure you are aware of this. I need to also point out that while you object to my involving you, you don't seem to mind, and conveniently overlook, the fact that O-10 first involved you; and, at the expense of other participants here. Why did you not object to that, Alex?
****Alex seems to be the least affected by the media hype, brain washers; by that I mean a person has to do independent research to find facts.****
Additionally, you went on to involve him with:
****Frogman, I am quite sure that Orpheus will giggle reading this, but if you have recognised the ’bait’ why did you have to answer it?****
Alex, I hope you can appreciate, on some level, the silliness of all this and how, if anything, it's just an indication of "thin skin" all the way around. Absent any further "proof" or valid retort from you, and given the obvious ambiguities and limitations of dialogue about complicated topics on a forum such as this, what is apparent to me is that the reason that you object to my taking those liberties and not to O-10 doing the same is that you and he seem to agree politically and you and I do not; not a particularly "deep" reason, imo. Speaking of "deep", or absence of it, this is what really matters (to me, anyway):
You may have noticed that my suggestion to O-10 was to not bait and to encourage "RESPECTFUL" dialogue about these topics if we choose to discuss these topics.
****I have come to the conclusion after our last ’discussion’ that (when it comes to politics) your perspective and opinions are not wide or deep (are that the proper terms?) in a way that your perspective is, or the whole attitude toward seeing ’bigger picture,’ when you discuss music.
That came as an unpleseant surprise****
So, my political views are not "wide" nor "deep". Hmmm, doesn't sound respectful to me, Alex. In fact, I find it rather arrogant on your part for being dismissive of the possibility that there may be a political outlook different from yours that may have validity; especially one held by someone who you acknowledge is capable of deep thinking. Outlook which is, in turn, judged by someone living in a different part of the world. Why make it personal? Alex, I have no desire to discuss politics with you here beyond cursory and causal comments because, as you point out, it is obvious that we are "far apart" on the subject. What I can tell you is I can accept this difference of opinion and not let it color my reaction to your comments. Frankly, I consider this a shame since I suspect that we could have some very interesting and intelligent discussions on these topics if we had a different setting. I would be most intrigued and interested in learning about your background, your heritage and culture and all that contributed to your point of view. Can you say the same?
|
It's all pretty funny, actually; especially your comments, Rok. Nicely done; sincerely. Sorry to disappoint you. Subtlety, nuance, good rhythm, good intonation, logic.....like good music. You know all about that, right? There's more than one way to win an argument besides low blows. Watch and learn, your winning record is not that good 😏. Sometimes I wonder what % of the 1.3 million views are for the soap opera instead of for the music. http://youtu.be/DCaa4YakNXU |
You guys will have to wait for my brilliant responses 😌 until tomorrow. |
****Frogman is evidently giving much thoughtful consideration to the link in question,**** Well, O-10, I am glad you look forward to my comments so much ☺️. Sorry to disappoint you; but, nah!, been getting our upstate digs ready for the winter. I did listen to that record while riding my tractor and mulching about five acres worth of Fall leaves. Alex (and O-10, of course), I’ve had that record for many years. It’s an interesting record on a few counts. Hawkins was one of Rollins’ main influences; primarily in the area of tone. Rollins adopted Hawkins’ very muscular tone concept and is known to have admired Hawkins for an approach to improvisation which was (fasten your seatbelt, O-10) as Rollins himself is quoted as saying, more "intellectual" than other players’ of Hawkins’ generation. These are/were two undisputed giants of the tenor saxophone. Hawkins is considered to have been the link between the great swing tenor players and the beboppers. His solo on his recording of "Body And Soul" is considered one of the all-time classic jazz solos; a groundbreaking solo that took improvisation from the very linear and traditionally melodic style of players like Lester Young to a new place of wider intervals and more "intellectual" outlining of chord changes, a style that reached full expression years later in John Coltrane. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zUFg6HvljDESonny Rollins, while retaining the husky tone style of Hawkins got rid of much of the breathiness (subtone) in the sound and the tendency to end every phrase with very obvious and wide vibrato; both, telltale signs that a player is coming out of the swing tradition. He further took the harmonic vocabulary to a whole other place with a much more extended harmonic approach (playing outside the more traditional chord structure) for a far more interesting harmonic palette. He also uses a lot of humor in his playing with phrasing and rhythmic choices that sound downright silly at times. At one point (22:57) in "Just Friends" ("Old Friends"??) he quotes "How Are Things In Glocca Morra" (from the Broadway musical Finian’s Rainbow) of all things; but, as a mark of his genius, makes it work. As I said, I find the record interesting, there is a lot of great playing and there is undeniable charm in Rollins paying homage to one of his heroes. However, I don’t find the record particularly enjoyable. Much has been made of Hawkins’ ability to play in a modern style or a more modern setting; I’m not so sure. Listen to "Body And Soul"; it is an absolute gem. That’s the style that Hawkins plays best and sounds most credible in with a rhythm section that is also in that stylistic frame of mind. He can sound exciting in some ways playing an uptempo tune like "Just Friends", but....there’s something not quite right. He was, in his heart of hearts, a great swing and ballad player. There is sometimes a kind of stylistic disconnect between the rhythm section and Hawkins. Likewise, when Rollins follows Hawkins, the rhythm section doesn’t switch gears and Rollins’ stylistic quirkiness and humor can sometimes sound like a "bull in a china closet" with the rhythm section sounding like it is just keeping time and not interacting with what he is playing like they should. I suppose all this is relatively subtle; but, I prefer to hear each player in his own comfort zone. My favorite Sonny record: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E8vZLljjb58https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yLKv7vAKVMs |
|
Alex, I am very glad you like "The Bridge"; personally, I think it's a brilliant record that belongs (and is) in many "best ever" lists. You know, although the brilliance of Sonny as an improviser is heard in just about everything he did and does (!), I agree with you that there are some aesthetic issues in his playing. You mention "tone". It's interesting because while his tone is not "hard" and edgy the way that, say, Coltrane's was, and was rather dark and not bright like Coltrane's, one of the very distinctive but idiosyncratic characteristics in Rollins' playing is a very "hard" way of articulating notes and phrases; the way the player attacks the notes with the tongue. Also, and I think this goes to one of the most interesting and beautiful things about players and their music, it's almost impossible to separate tone from attitude. You are exactly right, his tone sounds hard because his musical attitude is hard. Interestingly, while Coltrane's tone is actually "harder" still (in technical terms) his attitude is gentler because of the deep sense of spirituality in his playing; and, what to me, is a sense of humbleness. I hear neither of those things in Rollins' playing. Still, Rollins is one of the great improvisers. He has a very forceful way with rhythm. To me, while many players seem to play with or TO the rhythm section's pulse, with Sonny it is almost as if the rhythm section is playing to HIS rhythmic impetus; a very commanding player (no humbleness). Thanks for the clips. I don't think there is any "bad" Sonny Rollins record, but I must say that I don't particularly like just about all that he did from the 1970 onward. I have every record that Sonny recorded as a leader and those two are, unfortunately, not two of my favorites; I have a strong suspicion that they are not your favorites either. Ironically, and in spite of his brilliance, I don't think that his experiments with quasi-fusion and more contemporary "sounds" are his best efforts. No reflection on the style of music itself, just not his "comfort zone", imo. Two other favorites if you haven't heard them: Probably on even more "Best of Rollins" lists than even "The Bridge" (still my favorite): https://m.youtube.com/results?q=somny%20saxophone%20colossus&sm=3And this one, which I think was strangely overlooked in our earlier look at Jazz soundtracks, with arrangements by the great Oliver Nelson: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooizs5p8ZuY |
Orpheus, there are no words (at least that I care to write here) than can describe your hypocrisy and smallness of character. Way to go! |
Ghosthouse, I really liked the Neil Cowley clip; thanks for that. Interesting stuff and very well executed. Don’t know if you like or are familiar with "minimalist" Classical music, but this is the second time that you have posted music that shows a "minimalist" influence or vibe. Check out some of the music of John Adams if you haven’t already. Would be curious what you think. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0aj0rem0acA |
There is a lot of comfort in numbers and it is one of the toughest challenges and a great test of a horn player's mettle is to play with a rhythm section without a harmony instrument. Playing without a piano or guitar is a little like being naked. Any bs in a solo is laid bare. Not only is there less "clutter", but without the harmonic underpinnings supplied by the piano the improviser has to play in such a way that the listener can still follow the harmonic progression of a tune. The player has to have such complete command of the harmony of a tune that by playing a single note at a time the harmony is conveyed. Even many of the greats depended on being able to hear the harmonies while improvising; in a sense, it's a bit of a crutch. Few players could do this as well as Rollins. There is a reason that so many of the "greats" never rose to the challenge; and this wasn't always simple preference. Acman3, amazing! Thanks for that clip. Probably my favorite Sonny record after "The Bridge". His command of rhythm is simply amazing. This track is from the reissue of that record. It's a two record set that includes several cuts not in the original release. Elvin Jones kills on this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sBDulH-XsSM |
****Pat’s definitely an experimenter and innovator...would be a mistake to dismiss him as a new agey/smooth jazz player. ****
Exactly! Welcome to the Metheny admiration club 😍; the guy is a fantastically creative musician with a very wide range. While I, myself, have used the term "new agey" to describe some of his music, it was not meant as dismissive in any way and was used simply as a way to describe, for lack of a better term, one aspect of the flavor of some of the music that he is most known for; and, I would never call any of his music "smooth jazz" as I would describe that genre.
Imo, the "Acid Kiss" performance is absolutely fantastic; thanks for that Acman3! Cuong Vu is a very impressive trumpet player with a very interesting palette of tonal colors with his use of note bends, growls and other "vocal" sounds. He does this with the technical control and tone integrity of the conservatory-trained player that he is. Most importantly, he passes the acid test (pun) for any improviser, the ability to sustain the feeling that the solo is going somewhere with a minimum of notes; a particularly difficult thing to do when the "tune" doesn’t have an obvious harmonic framework that "leads" the listener’s ear forward. Notice that I said "improviser", not, "Jazz player"; I will leave it to others to decide for themselves whether this is "Jazz" or not. It is for me and meets my criteria for it; but, I don’t really care, I think it’s really good music. Not easy listening and a little unsettling; but really good.
****Maybe Frogman can weigh in with some music theory based description of what they are doing.****
"Acid Kiss" is, in the most basic sense, no different than most other "tunes" and a jazz performace of it: there is the statement of a melody, the repetition of the melody followed by improvised solos, and ending with a return to the melody. In this case, there is no obvious harmonic underpinning; it is only implied by the melody. Likewise, the rhythm or pulse is also implied and there isn’t an obvious "beat" until much later in the performace. The melody (tune) is heard at the very beginning as played by the trumpet. In the repetition of the melody Vu begins to improvise while sticking very close to the tune’s very simple outline and he continues to improvise while straying farther and farther away from the tune until 3:31 when he starts hinting at the melody again until 3:51 when Metheny joins him to make an obvious return to the melody in unison with Vu. It is during this unison melody interlude that drummer Ted Poor starts to define the rhythm and starts to lay down an obvious beat for the first time . At 5:00 Metheny solos over what is now essentially a 4/4 Rock rhythm. At 7:20 Vu reintroduces the melody while Metheny continues to solo and then "creeps" back in to join Vu with another unison statement of the melody. I love the way they end the tune: one final solo statement of the melody by Vu with some of the raunchiest and most interesting sounds I have heard come out of Metheny’s guitar synthesizer "accompanying" the melody and one final percussion statement by Poor.
This is is the kind of music that may sound like noise to some listeners and, in fact, the players would probably not object to the term "noise" being used to describe ONE aspect of this music. Fantastic noise, imo.
|
randy, I think the CTI record you are thinking of is Stanley Turrentine's "Sugar" (with Hubbard and Benson). Btw, I believe most of the CTI catalogue has already been remastered. Nice record and as Acman3 said it is, like a lot of CTI's, very good sounding. |
Alex, thanks for the Ryo Fukui clips; I was familiar with the name, but had not heard any of his records. Listening to both records was an interesting experience. The first clip, "Mellow Dream", did not impress me very much to be honest. His ability as a pianist did impress and is undeniable; but, while Fukui is a very accomplished pianist, he didn’t impress me as a stylist on that record. On the ballads he shows a clear Bill Evans influence and even an occasional bit of McCoy Tyner in his chord voicings; he clearly did his homework. In my comments re the Metheny/ Vu recording I mentioned the feeling that the great improvisers are able to convey of their improvised solos "going somewhere". It’s something that is hard to put into words and is obviously something that is subjective in part. But, for me, a great improvised solo either conveys the feeling of "beginning-development-ending" in a way that sustains interest in the listener, or it doesn’t. Is the player able to connect the phrases that he plays in a way that each phrase relates to and builds on the one before it in some way? This gives the solo forward movement instead of each phrase sounding like isolated events; that is the genius of great improvisation. On "Mellow Dream", Fukui doesn’t accomplish that, imo; his solos come across as individual isolated phrases that give his solos a kind of static feeling and don’t hold my attention, nor create a feeling of anticipation of where he is going. The surprise for me was that on the record "Scenery" he is much more succesfull in this regard and I find his soloing more interesting and tastier. On this record I hear a more relaxed rhythmic feel. Even more than the static quality in his soloing on "Mellow Dream", the main issue that I had with his playing was the feeling of playing very much on the "front side" of the beat which gives the music a subtle feeling of being rushed; at times, feeling a bit out of control like a ball rolling down the stairs. Clearly a personal preference for me, but his playing on that record is not relaxed enough for me and is lacking in the swagger that the great jazz pianists project. This gets a lot better on "Scenery" and I find this record, overall, much more enjoyable, especially on the ballads. I didn’t like his drummer Fukui (relation?) that much; pretty good time keeper, but his solos are a little rudimentary. I enjoyed listening to the records for the honesty and lack of pretense in his playing and I am glad to have heard his work. His playing conveys a feeling of "happy" as opposed to the brooding and melancholy feeling of someone like Bill Evans. From that standpoint they are worth hearing. However, if these were in my collection, would they be the first that come to mind when I want to listen to piano trio Jazz? I’m not so sure. Thanks for the intro and I look forward to Acman3’s impressions. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g-jsW61e_-wOne of my favorite piano players that "nobody ever heard of": https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AGK3cmVD9CU |
Alex, how do you like Fukui? Randy, if you are a Stanley Turrentine fan, be sure to check out some of his pre-CTI stuff as well. He had a great way of telling a story. Les McCann; major swagger: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nSREpSL-Yqk |
Alex, I am intrigued by your use of the word "Rococo" to describe music on CTI recordings. Obviously not fair to generalize, but they definitely have a certain sound that shows, I think, a heavy hand on the part of the producer. I have often felt a little cheated by some CTI recordings. Somehow, RVG's Blue Note recordings tend to give more of a sense that the musicians are more in control of the final sound; somehow, the music tends to sound more intimate and warm. If I understand what you mean correctly, I completely agree. |
Alex, I can't disagree with anything you wrote. CTI was a great commercial package; right down to the impressive album cover art. I don't know wether Creed Taylor's motivation was purely financial or wether it was an interest in bringing jazz to a broader audience, but I suspect there are many serious jazz lovers out there who got their feet wet with the more accessible CTI sound. A favorite CTI track (eventhough I'm not crazy about some of the rest of the record). But, why electric piano? I think it would have been much better with acoustic; but, electric piano was the sound of "modern" and "hip". Not for Desmond, imo; I think it just makes the track sound a little "Jazz-lite". Still, beautiful. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CAnxsGMXRME |
|
|
Great Dee Dee Bridgewater clip, Rok. She sounds fantastic, rhythm section is excellent and James Carter is on fire. I don’t know about anyone else, but it seems like a pretty great party to me and would put it up there with some of the best. It also goes to a couple of the recent points made. Alex points out that earlier periods in the evolution of jazz styles were more easily defined by name (swing, bop, etc) and recognized stylistically. There is some truth to this, but I don’t agree entirely. Seems to me that the reason there is truth to this is fairly obvious. The further back you go in the evolution of jazz, the "simpler" the music is with more easily followed melodies, less complex harmonies and simpler rhythms. This is no reflection on the sophistication in the performace of it. The closer you move toward the present the more complex the harmonies are with much more dissonance and complexity of rhythms; it puts more demands on the listener. Additionally, with each successive period in the history of the music there are more influences as part of the mix. The influence of World Musics on modern jazz is huge. Take a basic bean soup....add a lot of ham and potatoes....is it still a soup or is it a stew?....add rice and sausage....is it a stew or a gumbo? Harder to define. Does it matter? Even on this thread there has been quite a bit of confusion and misunderstanding about wether a particular performance is swing, bebop etc.. This ambiguity is one of the reasons that I think it’s pointless to try and so finely define the styles. To what end? I think we sometimes develop a bias against or for a particular style based on preconceived notions. Example: many jazz lovers don’t think too highly of Dixieland Jazz; yet, much of Louis Armstrong’s rightly revered music was "Dixieland", but it is seldom referred to as such. Every period in music, including the present, has excellent jazz and the "best" is seldom found in the "retro" stuff. The retro stuff will never be as good as the original stuff; it is in the new stuff where the "best" of any period can be found. I prefer to focus on the excellence (or not) of the execution instead of the "style". Speaking of which: "Liquid Soul" is just one of the "not easily defined" modern styles. Some would call it "Acid Jazz". Not sure why it’s called that, but I do know that it’s kind of fun and funky and pretty well executed. I like it ok, but if I was in the mood for something like that I would much prefer to listen to this which pushes similar buttons for me, but is executed on a higher level compositionally, improvisation-wise and overall level of skill. Not retro in 1975: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ylTE9yLRb6ghttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0cDxDnKt53MGhosthouse asked about trombone players in funk/fusion. One of the Crusader’s founders was trombonist Wayne Henderson. Great Bob Brookmeyer clips, thanks Alex. |
Alex, while you are correct in that there is, overall, less Classical music being composed today than during the most prolific periods in the music (the "Classical" period of the second half of the eighteenth century was the most prolific), there is a great deal of it still being composed. Not all of it is "dissonant" and a distinction should be made between "dissonance" and "atonality". I think that your analogy to jazz is a good one. While modern composers definitely build upon established traditions of composition technique as expressed by the great composers before them, the good ones have their own individual musical vision that they often express by breaking many of those traditions through novel use of harmony and rhythm; fundamentally, much the same way that a jazz artist composes or improvises. As always, all in the context of the idea that "any good art reflects the time of its creation".
|
Chazro, really liked the Brazilian Groove Band. Great chart; groovy and funky with a touch of that great "up" and traditionally Brazilian "Carnaval" vibe. I’m always a sucker for a great baritone sound and the drummer is killer with a great snare sound. Thanks for that. We recently touched on the role of the producer re CTI records. Overly produced music which aspires to stay in the (wide) realm of "Jazz" is usually a drag. Somehow, eventhough the engineer and artists might be the same, some CTI recordings (not all) tend to sound overly produced, imo. However, when "production" becomes a complete vehicle for the expression of the music the results can be great in their way. I was listening to this earlier today and thought that Ghosthouse, guitar-phile that he is, might find the guitar player (Jon Herrington) on this interesting. Killer sound and very tasty solos with a Jeff Beck-like touch. Definitely not jazz, and like it or not (I like it....sometimes....sometimes I almost hate it) the production values are amazing. In a whorehouse? Maybe: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6xk8x4bV8Mchttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-Td_kLBqDqE |
My last post was directed at Ghosthouse; sorry, Alex. |
****Not sure why one would ever be inclined to hate****(Fagen) Alex, I have been a fan of Steely Dan since college days forty (!) years ago and still have all their lp’s. I am more mixed about Fagen’s solo efforts which go even further into that slick, "urban-hip" sensibility and, as such, I have always had a love-hate relationship with his solo efforts. Notice I said that "sometimes" I hate "Sunken Condos" it is like my feeling about "The Nightfly". Sometimes I think that "The Nightfly" is a masterpiece. "Kamakiriad" leaves me absolutely cold. This is not the first time that I been asked why I feel this way and the best way I can describe why I feel this way is found in an article about an interview with Fagen that I saved a while back. The author does a fantastic job of putting into words Fagen’s personality and demeanor. From the interview: "When he speaks, he seems so contemptuous at his need to communicate to the outside world " What he describes is precisely the feeling that some of his music projects for me in spite of its many excellent qualities. This is an interesting example of the subjective/objective dilemma. From an objective standpoint it is, within that genre, compositionally great, the production values are state of the art and the playing is fantastic and "perfect". Subjectively, I am not always in the mood for its personality. Interesting reading for SD fans: http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/music/114035/shanah-tova-from-donald-fagen"Aja"’s title cut features the great Wayne Shorter on tenor saxophone. In 1985 Shorter released "Atlantis", what I think is, after Herbie Hancock’s "Headhunters", my favorite fusion recording. Very interesting compositions with a compositional depth not always found in the genre and great playing: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z3qXILIfPuwhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uyhXnCN5Tichttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bYjfHviuOGM |
Fabulous! Definitely whore-house material....as if I knew...not! Great chart and great feel. Fabulous plunger solo on trumpet. Once again, don't know where the "no more good new jazz" crowd is coming from. Dee Dee sounds great and I never heard heard such an obvious Biily Holiday influence and even a bit of Leon Thomas type "yodeling" thrown in. Good stuff! All this talk about ladies of the night made me think of this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mxVo5mjK4eghttps://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLO2wh9neLtRY6HqOq7kozUzaTKc1t4TRm&v=rctESG7Ht84Ghosthouse, I agree with your comments re SD but I do think that Fagen's solo projects go even deeper into the sensibility that I am trying to describe and somewhat away from the R&R sensibility that, even with all the Jazz and other "inform"ation, was still at the heart of SD's music (Becker?). My reaction is just a personal one and, to be clear, it has nothing to do with any knowledge of Fagen's personality as described in that interview; the vibe of his personality seems more obvious in the music of his solo projects, as expected. Not sure about the MJ reference. I get it in broad terms, but for me MJ is not in the gategory of great musicians so comparison to someone like DF seems a bit strained and, for me, different "rules" apply to MJ. MJ was a fabulous entertainer in a genre unapolagetically "pop" and whose final product depended on the producer's (Quincy Jones) hand to a great extent; not the case with DF. |
|
Thad Jones was a very innovative arranger and exploited the saxophone section with long sinewy saxophone "solis": the section playing long harmonized musical lines. Great conductor, he was in the "performance mix" more so than most big band leaders with the way that he shaped an arrangement by controlling and cueing the dynamics of the band. One watches him lead the band and it's almost as if he is part of the rhythm section with his body movements and handclaps, all the while shaping the dynamics of the performance. He got his start as an arranger while a member of the trumpet section in Count Basie's band. Not only was he a great arranger he was a great trumpet player: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IL78WhqILZQThe Vanguard jazz orchestra has been a cornerstone of NYC's Jazz scene for decades keeping Thad's flame alive and where the best current players can be heard. Some of my favorite saxophone writing by Thad: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4MSMgwknQlIGreat clip of the Thad&Mel mini-documentary, btw. |
|
|
Great Dexter clips! Not always recognized for being one of the very greatest and most influential, he was credited by Coltrane as one of his main influences. Always interesting, and sometimes funny, to connect the dots. From Miles' autobiography: http://www.dextergordon.org/blog/2016/3/12/miles-on-dexter |
O-10, Bird on tenor is a rarity and something that is not normally part of Bird’s most often heard work; thanks for posting that. Bird on tenor sounds like Bird. This is not a criticism in any way; Bird was great, perhaps the greatest:
While the musical personality of a great player transcends things like equipment used, there are some things unique to each member of the saxophone family that, to a degree, shape the sound and direction of a player’s vocabulary. He was, at heart, an alto player and his vocabulary works best on alto. In a way, its a little bit like a great American actor using a British accent for a role (or vice versa). The great actors can pull it off and be believable in the role; but, there’s still something in the accent that becomes obvious when one hears a native speak the language. Great clip; thanks! |
O-10, that Jay&Kay album is fantastic! Had not heard it, although trombone playing acquaintances often mention that collaboration as one of the best trombone showcases on record. Great areangements with great energy and wonderful swing feel from the all-star rhythm section on that trombone-fest recording. I got a chuckle from the name of the record label, Fontana Records. Carl Fontana (no connection to the label) was another West Coast trombone giant that doesn’t get enough attention: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TRtI-1hyPBkI was less excited by the 1954 Miles clip. I like just about everything that Miles did, but that recording has a sleepy quality about it that leaves me.... a little sleepy. Percy Heath!!....WAKE UP!!! Don’t get me wrong, real pros at work, but a little bit of a "phoned it in" quality all the way around. I consider that 50’s, pre-Columbia records to be part of a transitional period for Miles and not my favorite period of his recorded work (60’s were). This is Miles’ version of the same tune ("Walkin") from the 1964 Columbia recording "Four & More" with one of my two favorite rhythm sections in the history of the music (Trane’s McCoy/Garrison/Jones is the other): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wo5cio1KNkE1967: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=teCy3ogCGiEGhosthouse, did you get a chance to listen to Wayne Shorter’s "Atlantis"? Could be wrong, but it may be right up your alley. Rok, nice noise makers! |
There has always been a bit of controversy around the spelling of the title of Oscar Pettiford’s tune "Tric(r)otism". I believe the spelling should be "Tricrotism" not "Tricotism" eventhough it appears both ways on various recordings. Here is another (studio) version of the tune by Pass/Pederson with the tune’s title spelled correctly: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TAhqUtgagUkTricotism is not a real word whereas tricrotism is. Pertaining to the beating of the heart, it is a medical term for the presence of two additional arterial pulses for every heart beat. Since beat and pulse are clearly an element of music I think the answer to the question is obvious. Either way, great bebop "head" from the great bassist Oscar Pettiford. Another Oscar playing the tune: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y3jU6KGAzg8****Now back to Miles; I like this entire LP, never had to get up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn8EtaxGJP0**** O-10, is this a bad link? I like this also, but what is the connection to Miles? Ghosthouse, thanks for that link re the ST "Aja" recording. Wayne Shorter is one of the giants and someone that should definitely be at the very top of jazz artists to get to know. Not only was he one of the greatest players he was, perhaps even more so, one of the most respected composers in jazz. Very interesting and often challenging compositions: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hnqX9LMb71khttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xIC21Kd54JUI liked the Andy Summers version of "TTM", btw; thanks. |
****The Duke nailed it with the good and bad thing. People will be listening to Miles and Mozart and folks like that, forever.**** Duke’s often quoted comment is one of the simplest and most "to the point" comments ever uttered about music and one that I (not meaning to be self-serving) have quoted here at least two dozen times. However, I think our interpretation of the comment is sometimes, in fact, "self-serving" or, at least, incomplete and can be distorted to buttress our own preferences in music without acknowledging just how inclusive, imo, that comment was intended to be. Let’s put things in some sort of context: First of all, while it is fitting to quote Duke’s comment on a thread about jazz, it should be pointed out that Duke was not the first prominent musician to be credited with that insightful comment. In 1863, while having a conversation with a colleague about ethnicity in music, the great Italian composer Gioachino Rossini is known to have said: +++ My dear sir, there is no such distinction as you suppose between Italian, German and French music; there are only two kinds of music, good and bad. +++ It is quite possible that Duke, being the student of Classical music that he was, was inspired by Rossini’s well documented comment. This simple possibility adds weight to the truth in the comment; a Jazz musician may have been inspired by the comment of a Classical musician. But, back to Duke and since we are quoting Duke, let’s quote him some more: +++ It is becoming increasingly difficult to decide where jazz starts or where it stops, where Tin Pan Alley begins and jazz ends, or even where the borderline lies between between classical music and jazz. I feel there is no boundary line. +++ +++ I don’t believe in categories of any kind, ((and when you speak of problems between blacks and whites in the U.S.A. you are referring to categories again)). +++ For further context let’s also remember that Duke was also the person who said: +++ Bop is like playing Scrabble with all the vowels missing +++ He was a giant and musical genius....and still subject to personal bias. I don’t believe that Duke was putting any style, genre, or historical constraints on the meaning of the comment. Iow, while I am sure he was a fan of Mozart and Miles, he was also a fan of Stravinsky and Bartok; composers who have been called "noise makers" here. Given all of the above, I have no doubt that Duke would find "good" music in some of the "new jazz inflicted on us recently". Well, probably not in "Kenny G. and house music" ☺️. Musical giant that he was, he understood music on a much higher level than any of us ever will and while we would all like to think that our own individual and personal scope of what defines "good" music is "the truth", the "truth-truth" (pun) necessarily demands a deep understanding of much more than what we like or don’t like. As always, nothing wrong with stating that any one music or period in music is our favorite or even our "truth", but to make that a general truth for anyone but ourselves without a more comprehensive understanding of music including its technical elements (like Duke had in spades) and its relation and relevance to the time of its creation is pointless. If we want to use record sales as an indication of "good" (I don’t), while it is true that KOB is the best selling jazz record of all time, take a look at this list of the best-selling Jazz records of all time (let’s also be honest and not forget the debates right here about wether KBO actually deserves the notoriety that it receives). The results of this survey may surprise some, but of note are the facts that, out of thirty four, fourteen are "Fusion" and Pat Metheny ties Miles with three, and Duke is nowhere to be found on the list. http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Rifugium/best_selling_jazz_albums_of_all_time__riaa___or_theres_no_mon... |
As with music, "acquired taste" presumes open mindedness to the possibilities of the unfamiliar. In part, its a mindset. Is one going to be the type of individual who is always looking to the past for the coziness of the familiar or is one going to remain open to the possibility that there may be something just as good or better in the new. There may be healthy skepticism toward the new, but when it blinds us to the potential of the new and puts the familiar on a pedestal without any skepticism, it's not a good thing, imo. Example: From my vantage point there has been as much "old" jazz (I dislike "jazz-jazz") posted here that I would consider mediocre or even sub-par as there has been "new" jazz that I can say the same about. This goes to what I think is a key question that never receives a satisfactory answer in the endless debate about old vs. new jazz: What purpose, exactly, does it serve to hold on to a stance that always looks back in time for the only "good" jazz? Does this make the staunch old-jazz fan a better or more appreciative listener by being closed to the possibilities of the new? No way, and certainly not if one considers ALL that gets posted here as "good". Moreover, I don't read any particularly insightful comments or explanations as to why old jazz is always "better" other than "I say it is". "new jazz is noise", or "Wynton says it is". Nobody is saying that The Jazz Pistols are on the same artistic level as Coltrane; that would be silly. However, I don't think that this is the issue. Importantly, I don't think that there is anyone here who likes new-jazz that doesn't also like quality old-jazz; it seems that the reverse is not true. Why does it bother some that others find value in some new-jazz and can appreciate both new and old as long as it is of high quality? Does it "protect" old jazz by being closed to what the new has to offer? No way. In fact, I would say that being so close-minded toward new jazz and insulting of those who like it only serves to sour the new jazz listeners to exploring the old. O-10, Lew Tabackin, with the possible exception of Hubert Laws is the most accomplished flute player in jazz today; accomplished as an instrumentalist. Whether he is anyone's favorite jazz player on flute is up for debate, but he is certainly one of the very best. Beautiful player and beautiful rendition of Duke's composition. I don't know if it was intentional or accidental on your part, but posting that clip on the heels of a discussion about Duke and classical music was great; what in music is called a great "segue". Duke was a student of the great classical composers and while I have no way of knowing whether that composition was inspired by this other one or not, I have no doubt that Lew Tabackin, a devoted classical flute student, had this other piece in mind when he chose to play Duke's composition on flute instead of saxophone (his other instrument). Claude Debussy's "Syrinx" for solo flute is, to classical flute players, like "Night In Tunisia" is to beboppers; a staple of the repertory. Obviously two different styles of music, but I think that the similarities in the two melodies are striking. I am posting "Pyramid" again for the sake of comparison: "Syrinx" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aw53VrbI4l0"Pyramid" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rTp9mjI04kM |
****Do you think New Jazz is always better?**** Read my comments and you will note that I have never said anything remotely like that. **** Do you think it is equal to the original? **** Some of it is not only the equal of "the original", some of it is better. Now, please note the use of the word "some". **** Do you think there is no difference in artistic quality?**** Sometimes there is. Sometimes it's better. Please read my comments again, and the previous answer and please note "sometimes". Why do you think that the type of jazz it is defines how good it is? So, mediocre or bad old jazz is, by definition, better than any new jazz? ****I say one era is light years ahead of the other in both quality and quantity. Others may disagree.**** Ok, so what? If you can't find any value at all in music that is the product of and relevant to the time that you are living in, that is your issue, not mine. The simple fact that it is jazz of today is something that, by definition, gives it relevance and validity as a vehicle for creative expression. Whether you like it or not is a different matter. As far as quantity goes there is no doubt that you are correct; plenty of reasons for that. However, again, so what? How does that fact automatically make all of what IS there "bad" (noise)? As always, no problem with not liking something, but why bother attempting discourse about music if there won't be a bare minimum of civility by, at least, not calling what someone else may like "noise"? ****I do think, that if there was not a constant attempt to keep real Jazz in the conversation, it would NEVER be talked about on this thread.**** Not quite sure what you mean by that. If you are suggesting that it is YOUR attempt only, you would be incorrect and aren't paying attention. Speaking for myself, I have posted at least as much "real" (by your definition) jazz than new jazz. Furthermore, who's stopping you from talking about it? Talk away. If you are suggesting that we should not talk about new jazz at all, well, I think you know better. Hey, today is Dolo Coker's birthday. One of the truly unsung heroes of the piano. Here's some "real" Jazz for you; enjoy: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=efyQylrJm3Uhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M1adP_dhbfg |
|
Ghosthouse, thanks for those Jamal clips. Fantastic! Had not heard those and they are interesting to me in that they show Jamal playing in a somewhat different style from the chord-heavy approach of "Poinciana" days; more use of melodic lines in the right hand. Great player. I particularly enjoyed "Trio-Patterns" and beautiful rendition of "Stolen Moments" with a unexpected lilt and slightly faster tempo compared to the classic original: https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLcJnGPHSdzd9HgCBYpZ7TAHQZg4v2Z9rX&v=I777BcgQL9oI think "chamber-jazz" is a good description of Oregon's style. Very strong improvisational element as you point out. Combine this with very interesting and sometimes complex structures in their compositions and virtuosic playing and it pushes the broader "jazz" button for me. Whatever it is, it's really good music. Towner is a monster musician and a driving force in the group. ****(Sharon Jones) makes a good point for this thread**** -Rok What I think makes a good point for this thread is that while being so intent on pointing out what is not jazz (in your opinion only) you overlook great stuff like the Jamal clips. I think we are probably due for the twentieth posting of Ravel's "Bolero"; or perhaps more Billy Ocean or Luther Vandross. Now, THOSE will really get my feet and fingers tapping on two and four ☺️. You can join the party anytime. Cheers. |
Acman3, I just listened to your "Giant Steps In C" clip and I can't stop laughing. Great way to start the day and one of the funniest things I've heard in a while; thanks for that. |
Great accompanists don’t necessarily make consistently great soloists and great soloists don’t necessarily make great accompanyists. "The JB’s", as good and as funky as they were, were still usually "somebody else’s band"; and not just James Brown’s. Not a put down at all. Backing up a singer, especially one as imposing as James Brown is an art unto itself. I like the record and there are some real gems, and eventhough I may not make it to track eleven there’s some fun stuff........but I never feel like turning off James Brown. Imo, "The JB’s" seldom reach the level of tightness and funkiness that they do with James Brown up front. James Brown truly was a rhythm machine; the kind of soloist that could really propel the rhythm of the band and raise the overall level. At the same time, as good as the horn players in the band were at playing the usually sparse horn arrangements used when backing Brown with an amazing amount of tightness and "feel good" rawness, they just aren’t (even Maceo and he’s great) the kind of player that can sustain interest when playing extended solos instead of the short funky little statements that sound so good in James Brown’s arrangements. Also, as far as I’m concerned, if Clyde Stubblefiend is not the drummer it’s just not the same. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8L4gITE3nUchttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AoQ4AtsFWVMI liked the concept behind Kuroda’s music. Nice player and band, but I generally liked the concept more so than the execution of it sometimes wishing for a little less politeness in the playing; especially from the leader himself. I liked the dreamy and mellower tracks much better than the ones which tried to bring some funkiness in. Those did not have enough groove for me; ironically, especially when Kuroda played. One of my favorite "new jazz" trumpet players: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yMCdXT2p5Mkhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PgwSZzsh1_Ihttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yYJ7Trh81Z8https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8tH4vayjWcAThanks for the clips; good stuff. |
Great example, Dave Tough; legendary swing drummer for the reasons you mention. Some players have "the thing". Hard to explain, but they somehow take things to a higher level just by their presence. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ygX_pt_aceMGotta love YouTube! In looking for a clip with Dave Tough I noticed that the tenor player on that clip was the also legendary West Coast player Ted Nash, uncle and namesake of Ted Nash Jr. of Wynton's Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra, one of the hottest and most talented young jazz players around. That led to this clip of Ted jr.'s father Dick Nash, brother of Ted sr. Amazing trombone player and LA studio legend with an incredibly beautiful trombone sound. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GO0i3xCtEtMWhich led to this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g2BDlwb-uVY |
Ghosthouse, thanks for the kind words.....maybe in another lifetime. |
Alex, Gene Ammons, pretty darn funky. What a sound he had! Nothing "Pint Size"(d) about "Jug"'s tone; huge and funky. Actually, the funky definition of "funky" hasn't changed much over the years and is really the same at its most basic: VERY deep groove with looseness. The two things can seem contradictory, but that's the magic. Beautiful Jackie McLean and Kenny Burrell. Great clip, thanks. Here's a rarity: Ammons with Coltrane on alto (!). https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k3drm-bt-vw |
Thanks for the clip and recommendation, Alex. Great Ammons and great lineup. As before, Jackie McLean sounds great. It's interesting how McLean evolved as a player. To me he sounds best during this period and I don't enjoy much of his later work nearly as much. His playing seemed to get much more aggressive later in his career and with a tone that could sound downright nasty. Biggest surprise is Sulliman on trumpet. That's somebody worth exploring; he sounds really good here. O-10, don't know if anyone picked up on this, but the first Enigma clip borrows the opening of the famous and popular "Carmina Burana" by Carl Orff: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GXFSK0ogeg4 |
One of the most expressive tenor players ever, imo, Gene Ammons was one of the founders of the "Chicago style" of tenor playing. He could bebop with the best of them but usually chose to stay on the bluesy side of things and stayed clear of the modal jazz style that emerged later during his career (Rok 😃). If we think that "funky" has taken on different meanings and that "pop" music has changed dramatically over the years, consider the fact that this recording was on the Billboard Magazine's pop (!) charts in 1950: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BIgydCY6m54More favorite "Jug": https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=stEDTC4Xv8M |
Fabulous! Thanks for that. |
"moment" = comment . Sorry. |
****Apparently he or she is completely outside of my musical awareness. Is that good or bad for "Enigma".?****
O-10, my moment was not a judgmental one. It seems to me that when a musical group that is declared to be:
****the most creative musical group to come along in decades; they have presented a new form of artistic expression with mystic and experimental components which enabled them to sell 700 million records world wide.**** (!!!)
..... that the inclusion (sampling) of the opening of one of the (the?) most popular twentieth century Classical music works would be highly relevant. Fyi:
"Carmina Burana" is collection of medieval poems in Latin set to music by the German composer Carl Orff. Throughout the "Enigma" clips that you posted medieval music is a strong component.
|
****Folks on this thread do seem to listen to music as if they were music critics, instead of music lovers.****
Nonsense! And if I weren’t in such a good mood today I probably would have said "bulls++t!" We’ve been here so many times before that it’s ridiculous. Let’s take a closer look at this assertion and hopefully put it to rest once and for all (unlikely)....shall we?:
The main problem with that assertion is that the implication is that when there is any critical analysis there is less love for the music; that the "critic" is somehow automatically LESS of a music lover and that the listener who won’t or is incapable of being analytical is somehow a more "pure" lover of the music and is more in touch with or receptive to the emotional content in music; a ridiculous and self-serving stance. I would ask the "music lovers" here to please point out what it is they bring to the table of discussion or simple sharing of music that separates them from the supposed "critics" here. Let’s see, by way of quotes from prior posts or new commentary, what it is, exactly, that points to any advantage or any sort of "higher ground" in the areas of appreciation or love for any music by a choice or inability to be analytical. The point is, as has been pointed out many times before, that analysis ADDS to appreciation and can, if anything, fuel deeper love for the music. Now, conversely, kindly explain and point out what has been written here by those who add some degree of analysis to the "appreciation mix" that suggests that they love music any less.
I hope that the parallels between this "argument" and the old-jazz vs. new-jazz debate does not go unnoticed. It should also be pointed out, Rok, that I haven’t seen very much "music loving" from you lately by way of music sharing, but plenty of "criticism". I also don’t see any criticism by those who do analyze of those who choose not too, or can’t. Why the other way around? Hmmm....ironic, no?
Edit: to suggest that pointing out a very interesting aspect of a music is to "approach music from an academic standpoint" as opposed to "the emotional" and to equate this to "dissecting a frog" is unfair and condescending. In my universe it would merit at least a "isn't that interesting" or "Hmmm, let's see, I wonder what Medieval music is like?". Oh, well; to each his own. |
