O-10, thanks for the clip. Noah Preminger is an interesting young tenor player who is getting a lot of attention and good press. I had read about him but had not heard anything by him. I hear more Sonny Rollins than Coltrane in his playing in that clip and like his thoughtful playing. Modern sound without the usual (for a young player) post-Coltrane edge in the tone. Hard for any young tenor to avoid showing some Coltrane influence and I hear more of it in this clip. Terrible sounding piano (instrument) but the playing is great: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=npayMQZ7Cos |
Fantastic clips, Acman3; gotta love YouTube! My favorite band in all of jazz; Miles' 60's quintet. Amazing group interaction and post-bop playing. Thanks for that. And, wonder of wonders; look closely at around :55; we see Miles actually smile! 😎
Freddie and band are on fire. Nice to hear the material from his CTI period without the CTI studio sound aesthetic that drives me a little nuts with all that reverb. |
I can't imagine that there are any recordings by Herbie NOT available on CD. I can't speak to which are the best sounding CDs as I have most of his early ones on LP. However, some of my favorites music-wise and that any fan should own are (you already have two of the best):
"Takin Off"
"Speak Like A Child"
"Headhunters"
"Gershwin' World"
"The New Standard"
|
|
When the Bird/Lee Morgan analogy was made several posts ago, part of the reason I didn’t understand the comparison was that, if that kind of comparison to Bird had to be made, Dizzy was, for me, the obvious choice. He was right there with Bird as one of the creators and shapers of be-bop and, as a trumpet player, opened the door to a way of playing the instrument in jazz that was new; like Bird, he brought a level of sheer technicality (speed) and range not heard before. Personally, I never much liked Dizzy’s tone since it usually sounded pinched and like it was being squeezed out of the instrument. Just my personal taste and his playing was always exciting and very harmonically interesting. My own feeling about his contribution to shaping be-bop is that it is somewhat underacknowledged since Bird is always the one given the overwhelming amount of credit and everyone else, even Dizz, is a bit of an afterthought. I have to wonder how it would have changed jazz had Dizzy not lived. He had a long career and tremendous discography, but he was and remained a bebopper and the later projects in which he played funky or in other non-bebop styles weren’t quite as convincing as his bebop stuff was for me. To me he always sounded like a bebopper playing a different style. And, of course, there is the tremendous contribution he made by bringing Cuban music into the mix and as an embassador of jazz with that great very affable stage persona. One of the greats without a doubt.
But, compare to Miles? We will come up against the same issues as the other comparison and why I don’t quite get what this kind of comparison shows without putting it all in strict historical (evolution) context. As great and influential as Dizzy was, technically (no pun) he stopped being relevant (aside from his great bebop legacy) in the evolution of the music from the time hardbop came along. He was a bebopper and arguably the best. Where are his hardbop or post-bop recordings like what Miles was doing in the 60’s and beyond? Or, where is Dizzy’s "KOB"? We can compare Dizzy to bebop era Miles; that would be meaningful. And actually, I have always preferred Dizzy’s bebop playing over Miles’; certainly while they were each with Bird. But, Dizzy’s playing and vocabulary stayed there while Miles’ moved on; big time.
As instrumentalists... apples and oranges. Reason I never cared for Dizzy’s tone is that in order to play as squeaky high as he did some players take the "squeeze the note out" approach as opposed to the more relaxed approach which yields a fuller richer tone. He had A LOT of technique and speed; probably more than Miles. But he never sounded like he could play softly and controlled like Miles could.
I think that strateahed’s comment is very appropriate here:
**** ....when we look at jazz, unless we accept the premise that it encompasses more than bebop and hard bop, then there is no need for further discussion. ****
Dizzy was a giant who made tremendous contributions to the music. Miles remains a giant among giants, imo. |
**** I refuse to acknowledge that comment for reasons that should be quite apparent.****
Not apparent to me, so please explain. So, what are you saying? That jazz does not encompass more than bebop and hard bop? I hope not.
O-10, your clips, as good as they are, make my point perfectly. There is really nothing new in that music beyond what was common in jazz through, I would say, the 50’s. Again, absolutely nothing wrong with that; it is what it is, but it is certainly not breaking any new ground. That reworking of Manteca is nothing new except that it has been arranged for big band in a fairly traditional way.
Are you also suggesting that nothing of what Miles did from the 60’s forward can be definitively called jazz? Again, I hope not. 60’s Miles is much more advanced conceptually than anything Dizzy did. Not jazz? Really? This is not a criticism of Dizzy at all; he stayed in his comfort zone like most musicians, even many of the greats, did. If you do agree that 60’s Miles IS jazz, please post something by Dizzy that shows that kind of harmonic and/or rhythmic sophistication and forward looking attitude.
**** We have too many fundamental disagreements in regard to the music to begin a comparison of those two; consequently we’ll have to debate something else.****
With all due respect, then why do you propose such comparisons to begin with if you are not willing to, at least, give the discussion a shot?
|
O-10, personally, I don’t see the need to personalize a comment like that. I, and I’m sure strateahed as well, were not implying that you are narrow minded. However, it is relevant to the overall comment that I think he was making and to my recent one. I also think that since you were the person suggesting these comparisons, it’s relevance also has to do with a comment that you have made many times to the effect that your frame of reference is pretty much exclusive to what you consider the beginning of "modern jazz": bebop (Bird) and then hardbop. As always, if any discussion is to have any real meaning then I think we should strive for the most clarity possible; otherwise, there will be a sense that we are always guessing about what the writer is saying. Example:
In your comparison of Dizzy and Miles you seem to be suggesting that the fact that Miles "strayed away" from jazz as it was accepted until then and into his electric projects (non-jazz?) somehow lowers his standing relative to others simply by virtue of that fact. What about his work up until then, relative to what others like Dizzy were doing? Furthermore, Miles was doing stuff in the 60s (what many consider the best band ever in jazz) that was unlike anything Dizzy ever did and was not like his electric stuff at all; stuff generally considered "post-bop". So, what does the fact that he went on to venture into what some may not call jazz have to do with anything relative to Dizzy or anyone else? Personally, I don’t care whether it’s considered jazz by some or not; some of it is interesting music and that’s all that matters. You stated that the "exercise" of the comparison could be interesting. I think it could be...with a little more focus and clarity. Just some potential food for thought. Regards.
|
There’s always the paper inner sleeves from all those LP’s you gave up on 😱 |
Alex, sorry but I simply don't agree with your take on Dizzy's instrumental playing compared to Miles or others'. First of all, keep in mind that a comparison of the two players was asked for; I stand by my comments even though I would not necessarily have wanted to make the comparison. I did not say that Dizzy could not play the trumpet well or that he could not play it softly. I made the point that compared to Miles' finesse in those areas he was not on the same level. Your clips highlight what I described. What can I say? His tone sounds pinched to me; even without the mute. You like the "edge"; edge is only one part of a great tone. I much prefer a fuller tone a la Morgan or Hubbard. Miles' tone wasn't particularly full sounding either; but, not as thin as Dizzy's. His intonation is erratic compared to Miles' and he "flubs" over notes too often for my taste. I don't hear the absolute control of other players. Lastly, as I said previously, his improvisations often sound like bebop solos superimposed on a different style. Please keep in mind that all of this is relative. Again, I am not saying that he couldn't play the trumpet; that would be silly. Yes, I think he was playing the way he wanted to play; but, that does not mean that he could play a different way. Regards. |
Alex, for whatever it may be worth, I am not alone in my assessment of Dizzy’s tone and intonation. Again, it’s always relative to the best: http://www.jazz-music-history.com/Dizzy-Gillespie.html"Dizzy Gillespie was not highly regarded by most established trumpet stars at this time. The established swing trumpet players focused on good tone and intonation. He was focusing on harmonic evolution and had a rather thin tone. His tone got better later on." https://bahai-library.com/kernfeld_anb_dizzy_gillespie"A long-standing feature of Gillespie’s playing was evident even then, as a teenage companion, trombonist Norman Powe, recalled: "It was a very fast style. . . . He didn’t have a tone. He doesn’t have a good tone now, but his execution outweighs all that." "Gillespie brought to trumpet playing an unprecedented ability to play fast-moving melodies, both written and improvised, above complex chord progressions. In the classic recordings with Parker, a succession of nearly perfect unison statements of extremely difficult themes testifies to his uncanny knack for matching his trumpet to Parker’s alto saxophone. He coupled this facility with an audacious imagination that made his improvisations a musical revelation, rather than merely a technical exercise, as it would become in the hands of disciples such as Jon Faddis and Arturo Sandoval. Gillespie achieved this aim at the expense of timbral nuance, and in this regard he was surpassed by Miles Davis and by a chain of stylistically related trumpeters stretching from Fats Navarro, Clifford Brown, Donald Byrd, Lee Morgan, Freddie Hubbard, Woody Shaw, and Wynton Marsalis onward, although all of these players (Davis excepted) owed their basic improvisational approach to Gillespie’s innovations. https://books.google.com/books?id=4jkDAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT79&lpg=PT79&dq=dizzy+gillespie’s+ton... |
Alex, what we are talking about are not necessarily artistic choices; and, in the case of Dizzy, I don’t believe they were. Moreover, we may be misinterpreting, what the author of that quote is saying. Some jazz players cultivate the ability to sound loose or with a "casual" attitude in their tone for artistic expression. Miles was that kind of player; he could sound beautifully in control with excellent intonation and relaxed tone and if he wanted to other times sound the way a beginning trumpet student might sound. He was in control. Other players simply didn’t learn to play their instrument in a way that allows the tone to be fully developed and with good intonation. This is rudimentary in the physical act of playing a wind instrument. Dizzy was a completely self-taught player and he put emphasis on fast playing and high playing. While this fact, unto itself, may sound impressive, it is rare the self taught wind player that doesn’t develop some terrible playing habits. There are ways to accomplish the speed and range and still not develop the other traits in one’s playing. In fact, by starting with the "fast and high" pproach it makes it almost impossible to accomplish them. First thing any good teacher tells a student: "Play it very slowly". Moreover, his ability to improvise the way he did has nothing to do with the issue of finesse and control. In fact, it is a cliche among players that, generally, the ones who play a million notes are the ones likely to have issues with finesse and control. I have no idea whether Dizzy wanted to be able to play with the finesse and control of someone like Miles. You seem to be suggesting that he could at any moment, if he wanted to. No way! As with any other player on any instrument, if he really wanted to, sure! But it was going to require a complete rethinking of his embouchure, the way that he blows and other considerations. Reversing old playing habits could take a couple of years.
All of this may sound very calculated and in conflict with the creative spirit of jazz playing, but it is a reality that every player experiences whether studying an instrument formally or not. Many great jazz players, even if they did not attend Juilliard like Miles did for a while, started with teachers that, at least, pointed the way. There is a tendency to think that jazz players simply stick the instrument in their mouths or hands and magic happens. It’s much more than that. |
"Some days you get up and put the horn to your chops and it sounds pretty good and you win. Some days you try and nothing works and the horn wins. This goes on and on and then you die and the horn wins." - Dizzy Gillespie
"How do I know why Miles walks off the stage? Why don't you ask him? And besides, maybe we'd all like to be like Miles, and just haven't got the guts." - Dizzy Gillespie
|
It's bad enough that a person can insist on, for whatever personal reasons, closing himself off to new ideas or possibilities; unfortunate, but clearly a personal choice. However, to turn to insults because, in that person's small and closed off mindset, the possibility that there might be something new or interesting to learn that he didn't know previously is too bruising to his ego is beyond pathetic. Classic O-10:
Ask a question, pose a challenge or propose an "exercise" in comparison of musicians. Then, when ideas are proposed that are not in line with what he thinks he believes, even in the absence of anything written that is remotely personal or that should be provocative, turn to personal insults and derail the whole matter. Moreover, I said "THINKS he believes" because he doesn't offer anything substantive to make HIS case. Really?
|
Sometimes the hole a person digs for himself is so deep that any kind of retort is superfluous at best. O-10, I hope you feel better soon; sincerely. |
|
Alex, I agree with you about the film; I saw and commented on it a few months ago. I was also surprised with how unimpressive Don Cheadle was as an actor in that role; regardless of the quality of the material.
What you say about our preferences is true and is something that, as you know, we have been futilely trying to "conclude" here for quite some time. We can, as you say, "argue" about which period is "best"; but, ultimately, "best" is still about what our own individual favorite period in the music is. That is why I object to the idea of a "best" jazz player and the use of the term "jazz-jazz"; it implies that one period is more "jazz" than another. Try and tell a swing music or Lester Young devotee that Monk is "more jazz" than Lester Young. The (arguably) granddaddy of jazz Louis Armstrong famously once referred to bebop as "Chinese music"; that says it all. Personally, I don't have a "favorite period". I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with having one; only that I get as much satisfaction from listening to a fantastic traditional or swing band as I do from Coltrane or the best electric-period Herbie Hancock. My feeling is that it's the quality of the performance that matters more than the particular style. We have a tendency to deem a style that we don't like, or understand on the same level as one that we do like, as automatically inferior. IMO, this goes to why some of our discussions here go off-track and we go, as you say, "in circles". Take the Miles/Gillespie debate:
Putting aside how anyone of us may feel about Miles' last few recordings (which I don't like much; certainly not as compared to his earlier things) and using your 1969 date as a benchmark, Miles was doing things leading up to 1969 that was far more innovative than anything Dizzy ever did and which was still squarely in the "jazz-jazz" (😒) category. That didn't make him "better" than Dizzy. Dizzy was tremendously important, but most of what he did right to the end of his career harkens back to HIS "golden period"...bebop. Sure, he reworked "Night In Tunisia" different ways; but, it's still "NIT".
No player is or was without flaw or subject to criticism of some kind. A big problem with out discussions is that we tend to put our favorite players (or styles) on a pedestal and when anything remotely critical is said all perspective is lost. Why all the drama and insults from some(one) when, AFTER A MUSICIAN'S PERSPECTIVE IS ASKED FOR for comparison, it is pointed out that Miles was a better TRUMPET PLAYER than Dizzy? Especially when details explaining why and additional corroboration is given? Seems to me that a far more productive and insightful approach would be to try and understand the difference between "trumpet player" and "musician" as Learsfool correctly stressed. THEN we can really get somewhere if a comparison must be made. Even better would be to abandon the bulls%#t and arrogant notion that anyone one of us has a deeper insight into the "soul" of any music and that because someone can speak to the technical aspects of music that this somehow means that there is less appreciation of the "soul". What a bunch of self serving cr*p! How does anyone of us know how music touches someone else and why? This is unfortunately the fallback position for some. Those are things in the subjective realm. Things like what makes a better instrumentalist than someone else or which music is more advanced harmonically or compositionally are not subjective (mostly); there are many verifiably objective ways to make those assessments. Is any of this necessary to enjoy or love any music or musician? Of course not. But, to dismiss these very real issues while insisting on making judgment calls and comparisons is foolish.
|
|
+5'
I wonder if Home Depot has extra long shovels?
|
What was their logic; flawed and all? Curious.
|
Killer clip, Acman3. Carter Jefferson on tenor tearing it up. Now, THERE'S a player deserving greater recognition . If I was forced to pick my favorite ten and only ten jazz records, this would be one of them. Cult classic recording. The great Larry Young on organ, Elvin Jones, Joe Henderson and Woody Shaw. Amazing synergy between Young and Jones and overalll playing on the highest level: : https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOL4BdmfT02hjS1WELDBOEr4Nk37kqI7O |
|
Very well said, Alex; as usual, you are more of a gentleman than I. Ok, perhaps as O-10 says it is time for "down and dirty". Let’s get "down and dirty"; shall we?
The psychology behind some of this is truly fascinating if more than a little twisted. Here we have an individual that is so personally invested, for egotistical reasons, in being some sort of authority on the subject of jazz that he completely misses the most important and fundamental ingredient in the music: the creative spirit which, at its core, is about openness of mind to new ideas. But, no, the fantasy jazz-reality based on mistaken or incomplete ideas that he has constructed for himself and has become such a huge part of his personal identity cannot possibly have been flawed all these years. Facing this possibility is so difficult that he is willing to destroy the very forum that he started for sharing and discussing the music that he claims to love so much. And destroy it he will by insulting and alienating those who have a different point of view from his and which all evidence shows is much closer to the truth than his point of view. Better to destroy it than to have to deal with having been mistaken about anything that has to do with his personality calling card..."Aficionado". And, yes, all this bulls#% IS one of the main reasons that there aren’t more contributors to this thread. Not that, as he claims, as yet another example of the need to stroke his ego, it is that there are only a select few that have the "insight" or "knowledge" or open window to the "soul" of jazz; a select few that will be smaller and and smaller in numbers until this thread is no more.
O-10, IT WAS you who started this most recent squabble and proceeded to feed it. You asked a question and then proceeded to insult and demean those who factually and in a good spirited way expressed a different point of view from yours. You then, as is usual, proceeded to create smoke screens around your reasons and justifications for your divisive behavior by making statements about things that have nothing to do with the original questions; and you continue to do so. I could address these point for point, but not only am I tired of this, but its all pretty obvious if you just go back over the exchanges. As far as I am concerned you owe everyone here an apology. As always, all this in the hope that this thread can be better than this.
|
Ooookay.....here’s hoping for a fresh (re)start: Ghosthouse, when I posted this a couple of days ago I thought of you and a post you made a while back about a relative (?) that is into Hammond organ. Posting it again in case you, or anyone else, missed it or care to comment on it. I think this record is so good that it merits reposting anyway. Let’s "chill peoples"!: **** If I was forced to pick my favorite ten and only ten jazz records, this would be one of them. Cult classic recording. The great Larry Young on organ, Elvin Jones, Joe Henderson and Woody Shaw. Amazing synergy between Young and Jones and overall playing on the highest level: : https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOL4BdmfT02hjS1WELDBOEr4Nk37kqI7O**** |
No. Was listening to early Count Basie today. Wonderful feel on this classic pre-bebop recording and I love Helen Humes’ voice and style. Music that puts a smile on ones’ face; thought it would be just the ticket right now: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ0vmG_tbYA |
Glad you and your bro in law liked the Larry Young recording, Ghosthouse. His description of his playing is exactly right. One of the things that is remarkable about that record, besides the outstanding soloing that you pointed out, is the amazing groove a two man rhythm section can generate. Elvin Jones is always amazing, and drummers' ability to play independent rhythms with hands and feet is well recognized, but I am always amazed by the way a good Hammond player can also play bass lines with his feet. Thanks for the link.
|
|
Interesting that the subject of "wisdom" should come up; and, in this context. I just heard this on the wonderful WBGO Newark on my to way to rehearse Massenet (talk about beauty and truth!). The latest from the great Eddie Palmieri, perhaps the greatest living Latin-Jazz musician. New recording titled "Sabiduria"/"Wisdom". If one watches a great salsa dancer, it all happens from the waist down; mostly....the crotch. The title cut (second clip here) is what I heard and it knocked me out. Ronnie Cuber on baritone, David Spinoza, guitar, Bernard Purdie and other great players. Thought provoking comments previously all the way around about wisdom, truth and beauty. I’ll be sixty in a couple of months and I just hope I don’t ever stop being able to see/hear the truth in this music: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=crGXPI1fO4whttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tpgC5dDra_A |
**** I think The Frogman missed his calling. **** 😊 I don’t think so, but you did remind me of my favorite (only?) musician/comic, the great Pete Barbuti. I think a little silly humor might go a long way at this very strange time we are going through: https://youtu.be/FnsEZ9q2hOc |
I think the key to understanding Miles is found in a basic premise; a premise that is controversial for many listeners and which is at the heart of a lot of the "bruha" (to quote O-10) on this thread. This basic premise says that the artistic success of any music is determined by how well it expresses or represents the time of its creation; not as compared to an aesthetic or strict standard of excellence from the past. Moreover, whether we like what any music is saying about the time of its creation or not is besides the point. Personally, I am of two minds about the validity of this premise since certain standards are timeless; but, I have to acknowledge the "purity" of this premise and I see a basic and pointless conflict in always applying standards that only go back in time. Time moves forward; whether we like it or not.
Miles was the quintessential example of this premise and, by that standard, the album "Tutu" is a success. Considered by some his last great record it is a great example of much of what was going on at the time with the use of electronics and atmospheric textures. His trumpet playing is in really good form (timeless standard) whether we like what he is playing or not. Whether the music is "jazz" or not is also besides the point. I personally don't think it is and the fact that Miles used to play jazz as most of us know it means absolutely nothing in this context and shouldn't influence how we judge this music, imo. He was never a slave to the past and always felt his mission was to represent the present and, if anything, nudge it forward not backwards. Still, and accuse me of looking backwards, but, for me, 60's Miles is still the pinnacle of his career and represents the best balance between the timeless standards and the new.
Ghosthouse, your comments about the economy in Miles' playing is spot on.
"Its not the notes you play, but the notes you don't play" - Miles Davis
"You have to know 400 notes that you can play, then pick the right four." - Miles Davis
|
I can't think of any Ellington recording that is not worth having. I have several of these recordings on various other early Ellington releases or compilations and the music is fantastic and are great examples of where jazz was at, at this early stage. I can't speak to the sound quality of these particular reissues and some of the ones I have are not particularly great in that regard; but, again, the music is great. I love this style of both solo and ensemble playing. From a technical standpoint the playing has a very different stylistic feel (duh!) from most of the jazz discussed to date on this thread since the focus here has been primarily on "modern" jazz. The style may seem "quaint" to some with its much heavier use of vibrato by the winds and brass and an overall much "jumpier" (for lack of better term) swing feel than in later periods. Great tunes evocative of that era. Let us know what you think. |
Probably my favorite tenor saxophone tone of all the great tenor players that there have been. Bluesy with a wonderful vocal quality in his use of inflections and economical vibrato. Stanley Turrentine had a way with solo that really told a story with music. Modern enough in concept, but rooted in the traditional and the blues. Great record: https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL37BEB0C7D6F3EFF4&v=vHl2vRzQTlk |
**** It’s world wide and will be known as toil - orona. ****
More like toil-oroma 😝 |
I blew the punchline. Nothing worse! It’s that second language thing 🤔. Otra vez: **** Y’o folk’ talk’ funna. **** Here, that is called “the pot calling the kettle black” 😊 https://youtu.be/cc9Gfgcri4Q |
Welcome back, O-10. Hope all is well.
Ghosthouse, I like the "School Of The Arts" clip, thanks. I like it for reasons that don't always come into play for me when I listen to something. You mention T Lavitz. Like you, I have always liked his playing. You may find a little background of interest:
First, I think I posted something by The Dregs a while back around the time that you first started posting on the thread. I think I posted it to get your reaction to Steve Morse, but I don't remember if you commented on the clip.
I knew T Lavitz when we were both attending the University of Miami School of Music. He was a saxophone student and piano was a secondary interest; although his talent on piano was obvious. He later decided to concentrate on the piano. Some of the original members (not Lavitz) of what was then the University of Miami "Rock Ensemble" went on to found The Dixie Dregs. T Lavitz was an extraordinarily talented guy with a very wide musical range. "School Of The Arts" was unfortunately one of his last projects.
That project is undoubtedly a fusion project attitude-wise; with the interesting twist, as you point out, that most of the instruments are acoustic. One of the reasons I find it interesting and like it (with some qualifications) is that I like it even though it flies in the face of some of the things that are usually requirements for my liking music and what would normally be needed for music to sound "organic" as you say. First, T Lavitz wrote all the music....ALL THE MUSIC....EVERY NOTE, including the solos. It was all through-composed. Beyond that, the musicians were not only never in the same room, but were in different parts of the country and in this time of file sharing and home studios they each performed their respective parts alone and as written and sent to them by Lavitz. One could say that, eventhough these are virtuoso players, the last bit of musician interaction is not there compared to other projects; interaction that results in more spontaneity and deeper grooves, but it's pretty darn good in those regards and it's the concept that carries the day in my opinion. High energy stuff with lots of twists and turns performed at, as you say, a very high level of proficiency. Lavitz was a very interesting guy who was a jazz player with a rock player's attitude. It might also be interesting to note that his previous (I think) band was called "Jazz Is Dead".
|
Ghosthouse, no offense taken. The musician's community is a pretty small one. Musicians that know each other and have any kind of history together know and follow what each other is doing musically in conversation or active research. That is why I knew about the details of the SOTA project. The particulars about that project that I described, and one of the reasons that it is interesting to me, make it a particularly interesting topic of coversation. I would be surprised if you couldn't find some references to all that on line.
|
|
It’s been done both ways. Interesting that Ms Washington chose to cover all bases. I suppose forgivable given that the song was actually written in Spanish by a Mexican songwriter with a title that translates to “When I Return To Your Side”: With the seldom heard intro: https://youtu.be/sLNtR0ONlPMA bit of a rarity, Paquito D’Rivera on tenor: https://youtu.be/SGMo43icrfE |
Correction:
That is not Paquito on tenor; it is Poncho Silva.
|
|
|
"Kinda meaty" is a good way to describe that piece by Corea. I understand your reaction to a lot of Corea’s other work. A lot of his stuff does have a quality about it that can give it a lite, even kinda cute, vibe. Personally, I wouldn’t call it "shallow" as his compositions and playing have also have a sense of sincerity. He definitely has a unique voice that is informed by his Spanish heritage and Classical music background. Several of his tunes have become standards and "Spain" is probably his most recognized. Great tune featuring perhaps the greatest jazz flutist that ever lived; well, my favorite at least, the great Joe Farrell: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a_OEJ0wqt2gOne of my all-time favorite recordings, Stan Getz’s "Sweet Rain" features some of my very favorite playing by Corea as sideman: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3qGDF5gnjTU |
**** (I really should shut up now. Getting in over my head.) ****
Not at all. I think your descriptions are excellent and an inquisitive attitude is something that makes for good exchanges.
|
The only suggestion that I have is to keep doing what you’re doing; the way that you’re doing it. You are a true music lover and your attitude reflects that. Imo, to be open to all that any music has to offer any listener needs to approach listening with, at least, a modicum of humility. How much there is to understand and appreciate is practically endless and the process needs to be about the music more so than about ourselven. You mention that you approached your foray into jazz without the intention of building a library. I also notice that you gave XX (like) to, among others, Coltrane’s "Giant Steps" and "A Love Supreme". I suspect that library will grow no matter what.
|
Ghosthouse, thanks for the Jamie Saft clip. You are correct that, while I live in NYC, I do have a property in upstate NY. While I don’t know him nor Swallow or Previte personally I do know some of their work from their recordings with various other leaders; especially Swallow’s. In the case of Saft, I first heard him play several years ago when he was the piano soloist in a performance here in NYC of a chamber opera (!) by John Adams. That fact alone is indicative of the versatility of many of the musicians in the "experimental music" or "new music" scenes today. Also known as the "downtown scene" since the birthplace of this broad music category was "downtown" NYC. A lot of these musicians are excellent jazz players whose playing is informed by their interest and involvement in the modern classical, chamber and rock worlds. I like Saft’s playing on your clip quite a bit and was not familiar with too much of his work including this recording; thanks for the introduction. I find him to have a rather unique approach. His rhythmic feel is not as "swingy" as a lot of other piano players and is probably a result of his interest in other genres; and I particularly like the way he uses flurries of notes where the shape of the flurries become the musical statements. Steve Swallow is legendary and someone that is worth checking out. He was one of the first prominent electric jazz bass players and longtime collaborator with composer/pianist Carla Bley. I agree with you about the drumming and the music in general; very modern in feeling. Previte is wonderful and while he definitely brings a modern approach to the proceedings Saft and Swallow are equal partners in that feeling of "modern". Thanks again for the clip! Carla Bley’s music I find to be an acquired taste, but interesting and her collaboration with Steve Swallow is definitely worth being familiar with. Swallow's recordings with vibist Gary Burton is also worth checking out: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PAhThf3ot1Y |
|
A lot of great live jazz experiences, minorl; and welcome to the thread. Would have loved to see Shirley Horn live; one of my very favorite singers (great pianist too). Schubert, I don’t know if you are familiar with Horn, but since you seem to have a soft spot for female jazz singers and appreciate a minimalist playing style you may enjoy this; one of my very favorite records (gorgeous minimalist orchestrations by the great Johnny Mandel): https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLiBmNC-kqJEIKTMlP0AD-6yWP8mi2_oE7 |
|
|
|
Few artists have been able to project the level of musical integrity that John Coltrane was able to. Even the photographs of him that I have seen project an intense feeling of purpose, but with a sense of calm and humility; all the more striking when one considers the ferocious quality of some of his playing. My personal feeling only, but this is the reason that I have always been reluctant to attach any kind of negativity to the music from his very last years (post "ALS"); as difficult as it may be to listen to and understand. IMO, artistry that deep deserves the listener’s humility and willingness to consider that it is we who are not up to the task.
Schubert, very interesting that you should, without knowing the background of the music, attach religiosity to it.
|
