Jazz for aficionados
pryso, June, 1928. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/louis-armstrong-records-west-end-blues And yes, great stuff, Toussaint. |
You just need to get yourself some NEW cryod cables and all will be well 😊 Your player will then play this. Sound quality maybe not as “audiophile good”, but even better in every other way: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4WPCBieSESI |
Excellent clips, O-10 and Alex. Nice to hear two very different approaches to the same tune “Grand Street”. In keeping with pryso’s comment about Rollins, a good example of how “big” Rollins can sound in the company of a big brass section which tends to diminish the “presence” of lesser players. I loved the Kenny Dorham broadcast tapes. Fantastic playing all the way around with the loose feeling that live (club) performances always have. I have always liked Dorham’s unique trumpet style and he sounds fantastic here. I particularly liked Sonny Red’s playing on these recordings; very forward looking with a harmonic bebop style that definitely points to the (then) future. Particularly interesting for me is the presence Joe Farrell on these recordings. Now, THERE’s an under-appreciated player, imo. Farrell is known primarily as the flutist and saxophonist in Chick Corea’s “Return To Forever” band that recorded the classic “Light As A Feather” among others. Great to hear his earlier more “straight ahead” playing. He went on to be part of CTI Records’ stable and his CTI recordings were always some of the most interesting of all CTI’s from that period; not as over-produced and overtly “funky” as most others. However, for me it was always his work with Elvin Jones and Chick Corea that stood out. Fantastic modern tenor sound and another player who made one not miss the piano: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dxv6guUGUSg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d3OwvKdv-u0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oqp-3biB_tE Probably the most beautiful and accomplished jazz flutist ever: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a_OEJ0wqt2g https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T4W5ODYFwmI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=muJnrs_tDc4 |
Great clips, acman3. Woody Shaw sounds amazing; and of course Farrell. Thanks. pryso, good catch re Albeniz/Corea. You bring up an interesting point re musical quotations in jazz solos. First, musical compositions which are copyrighted are protected for the life of the composer plus (I think) 70 years or so. Usually the composer’s estate continues to receive royalty payments for 70 years after death. However, there is something referred to as “fair use” which improvised solos would, usually fall under. You may find this interesting: http://1630music.com/Publications/The%20Mythology%20of%20Copyright.pdf Getting much deeper into the subject: https://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1... |
Glad you enjoyed those links, mary_jo. pryso made a good observation re players quoting other tunes in their solos: **** In fact it happens so often it can become a parlor game to identify all the other music references a soloist may include in their turn. **** As with most things it depends on the skill with which it is done. I wish I could claim to have said this: in a recent discussion on the subject a musician acquaintance said “When you are trying to channel John Coltrane, you don’t want to hear Woody Woodpecker”. To which another musician said: “Yeah, but not everyone is good at telling jokes”. Charlie Parker was one of the most prolific at quoting other tunes. Surely due in part to the fact that he listened to and studied a wide variety of musical styles and was a huge fan of Classical composers, Igor Stravinsky in particular and whom he often quoted in his solos.. Here is as great an example of just how deeply into the details of a jazz giant’s playing some insane jazz-heads can get 😎: On the subject of Charlie Parker’s quotations of other tunes in his solos (and, yes, he too quotes “Woody Woodpecker” in example #006): http://www.chasinthebird.com/quotes_e.html |
pryso, I do agree; completely. I think that we are often seduced by the “ear-candy” quality of “perfectionist” recordings to the extent that we overlook or forget a basic truth: less is more when it comes to the recording of music. Of course, there are exceptions to this, but the inescapable fact is that the more processing and “stuff” that is used during the recording process the more that is lost of the music in a very fundamental way that is very difficult to put into words; it’s about the human element in music making. For me, that is the reason that there is something very truthful about those old recordings. The path from the musicians’ instrument to the recording device is very direct. That is also the reason that so many feel (myself included) that a good analog recording still beats the pants off a good digital one. Additionally, “old school” engineers like RVG and some before him relied on their ears much more than engineers today and they prioritized the preservation of the sound as the musician made it and not as they thought it should be. Your clip of the Louis Armstrong concert is a good example of this. First, I thought the playing was fantastic all the way around. Louis was Louis; great as always. Barney Bigard sounded awesome and it was a good reminder for me of just how great he was. It was interesting hearing Louis sing without as much gravel in his voice as he did in later years. Overall, I thought the clip was a gem. Sound wise I thought it served the music extremely well and it is little details like the horns playing background figures without their own mics, but simply being picked up by the soloist’s mic and sounding appropriately “in the background” that give recordings like that a sense of honesty that I love. When an overzealous engineer starts sticking mics in front of every horn and messing with balances is when the music gets screwed up. Thanks for a great clip. Thanks, mary_jo also for a great clip. One of the classic pairings in jazz Ella and Louis. Perfection; like really tart raspberry sauce and creamy vanilla ice cream. **** You can't play anything on a horn that Louis hasn't played" **** Well, a bit of hyperbole to be sure, but in a way goes to the issue of “truth” in music and is an expression of the kind of respect that players have for his musicianship. Obviously, Louis’ style, by definition, means that, in spite of the fact that he was a really great trumpet player, there was a lot done on the trumpet in later years that he never did. However, what musicians mean when they say that is that as far as core musical considerations like incredibly “in the pocket” sense of rhythm and ability to manipulate it and his way of “telling a story” with music no one has done it better. Amazing and important musician. |
Very nice! And very interesting record in several ways. First, news to me that Delos Records has a Jazz wing. I particularly liked the originals; very interesting tunes. The rhythm section sounds fabulous. Loved their feel. Harold Land sounds really good as usual, but I did find him to sound a little dated in this context. Oldest player in the band; so not a total surprise. Nothing having to do with aging, just the “e” word again. Great record and glad to have heard it. Thanks. |
At 12 years old!!!! Imagine if he had had a bass player that didn’t rush: https://youtu.be/rYJSxW5ijgA |
I wouldn’t be too sure about that. Musicians don’t worry about labels nearly as much as listeners do; especially listeners who feel the need to attach strict labels to everything in order to justify their own narrow tastes. I guarantee you the kid was thinking “I just played music with my idol (and pretty much held my own)”, not “I played jazz with my idol”. **** Must be the money. **** Of course, it couldn’t possibly be that your perspective is a bit off and that those real jazz players understand something you don’t? |
O-10, as I get older I seem to get less and less tolerant of bs. I suppose I should appreciate, on some level, the attempt at even handed magnanimity even if it rings hollow. There would never be any argument over preferences and different tastes in music were it not accompanied with a sense of superiority and shades of condescension for those with a different view; especially when it s not accompanied by much that is substantive. I have a different take (surprise!): It is not that you are “asking too much”, it is that you are asking too little....of yourselves and of your musical acumen. As usual the proof is obvious: The Chick Corea tune is not from “My Spanish Heart”; it is the tune “Spain” from “Light As A Feather”. Additionally, do I need to remind you that the “warmed over Mingus” was presented by you when you could not recognize the obvious, that it was not the original Mingus? |
Re Benny Carter: I couldn’t agree more that he hasn’t gotten his due here; only a couple of prior mentions by you and I. Fantastic musician. Saxophonist AND trumpet player, not to mention fantastic arranger. Recently had the pleasure of being part of a project of the recreation of the music for the classic Fred Astaire film “An American In Paris” and was pleasantly surprised to learn that the orchestrations of that great George Gershwin score were by Benny Carter. One of the most admired musicians, by musicians. Great clip! |
Actually, the personnel on each version of NIT is different enough that they will each have a very different feel; and they do. On O-10’s clip it is Al Haig on piano and Curley Russell on bass as opposed to Bud and Mingus on Acman3’s. I too like them both , each for different reasons; but overall I like the version with Bud and Mingus better. First, I much prefer the way that the Massey Hall version was recorded. It has a more distant perspective, but much better balanced whereas the other was recorded much more upclose and the drums overpower the horns; not as realistic. Musically, the Massey Hall is slightly faster and the band sounds a little lighter and tighter overall. The other sounds more “swingy” which I don’t think serves the Latin flavor of the tune as much. On the other hand, the solos by both Bird and Dizzy on the version with Al Haig are incredible. Bird’s solo break is a wonder. Tough choice, aren’t we lucky? |
O-10, why do you do this? Why do you ask for opinions and then pick fights when you don’t like the answers? You often seem desperate to be “right” when it’s not a matter of being right or wrong; especially curious coming from someone who does a lot of “wiggling” (your term) by invoking the “subjectivity clause”. You think your clip is “better”, whatever that means. That’s great! I already said I like them both and gave detailed reasons for why I like the other a little better overall. Just what is the problem? You think the music on your clip is better. I disagree that overall it’s better; it’s different. Btw, re the plastic saxophone. Talk about “superfluous”!!! Actually, it was made of acrylic; the “Grafton” saxophone. If you would like to know why to a player like Bird it would make no difference let me know and I would be glad to explain it to you. In the meantime, you may find this interesting. Be sure to check out the video link of the comparison/demonstration of a brass saxophone (Buesher) and the Grafton acrylic saxophone; the very kind Bird used at Massey Hall: https://tamingthesaxophone.com/saxophone-material |
O-10, you couldn’t be more mistakenI certainly gave the music a critical listen; otherwise I would not have made the comments that I made. I have no interest in “winning”. More importantly, I can’t accept your hollow “concession”; concession that I am not looking for nor interested in. It is not I that is “locked in a wrong answer”, it is you. I don’t have a problem with your answer, why do you have a problem with mine? Like I said, it’s not a matter of better or worse; it’s about preferences based on what one considers the most important criteria in a performance. You think that the quality of the solos is the most important thing in a performance. I, and musicians in general, would strongly disagree with that concept and would consider that outlook uninformed and rather sophomoric. Sorry to be so blunt, but you take these discussions to an unpleasant place. **** What could be more important than those two solos? **** A “performance” is comprised of many elements; the soloing is just one of them. I already stated that the solos in your clip, particularly Bird’s, are extraordinary. But, that’s not to say the solos on the Massey Hall version are not excellent as well. Moreover, there is a certain logic in the continuity of the soloing in the Massey version that serves the overall performance better than the other version; and on balance, I think the Massey performance is a more balanced one. Better feel from the rhythm section not to mention better and more balanced recorded sound; as well as excellent, if arguably not as fiery soloing. Those things make it a better performance for me. **** Anybody else, I would let it slide, because they are not capable of making an "objective" evaluation of the music, **** I beg to differ on that one too and I would be careful about underestimating other posters’ ability to judge for themselves. |
pryso, excellent observations re the two saxophones; I concur with your observations. I think the even larger point is that in the hands of a player with the ability of Charlie Parker the differences would be insignificant and not a significant impediment to full expression. In answer to your question re Ornette, like most players they used different instruments at various points in their career and Ornette did, in fact, also use the Grafton white acrylic saxophone as well as more conventional metal instruments. Since we are concerning ourselves with players’ equipment it is important to note that more important than the instrument (assuming that the instruments are all of high quality) is the mouthpiece. The differences in sound between mouthpieces, and the sound that they allow the player to “shape”, is hugely greater than between saxophones of different brands or material used in their construction. btw, as just one of the many paralells to audiophilia, the mouthpiece is closest to “the source”, and just like the quality or inherent sound of a CD player, phono cartridge or turntable, it will have the biggest impact on the final sound. |
Don’t know about hindsight, never mind 20/20 (and not sure what you mean by that); but I can tell you this: Parker was under contract to play only a certain brand of saxophone when outside the USA. He had hocked his horn to buy heroin so he needed a horn. He was offered the Grafton by a salesman for the Italian company. I never suggested that “fans should know better”. Hoffman, who is neither a saxophone player nor professional musician, is an audio gear head and audiophile who always thinks it’s all about the gear. He made the same mistake that fans would make assuming that a “plastic” saxophone would be a “dinky” toy and nothing more. The subject of the plastic horn is the stuff of legend among players and the general concensus is that while it may not be the best horn in the world, it’s not bad at all. Far more important is the mistake that Hoffman and some fans make of not understanding that, as acman3 points out, in the hands of a talent like Bird it wouldn’t matter that much. Bottom line: listen to the end result of the quality of Bird’s playing and/or clips I posted of the saxophone being played. The author of that review is correct: makes a great case for the brilliance of Bird. |
Excellent and very informative post, mary_jo; thank you for that. As is usual with these issues I think that it’s important to remember that there are no absolutes and that the tendency is to go to extremes with the conclusions. This is what I mean, and for instance: **** For saxophone, the material is not important for the sound quality, this is more important for durability, playability, wear resistance, corrosion resistance, etc. And of course, for seller marketing tricks. **** That statement is true as concerns the impact that the material may have on the instrument’s ability to allow the player to express himself. An instrument that is well designed, as you point out, will allow that regardless of material used. The statement is not entirely true because there are, in fact, subtle sonic nuances that will manifest themselves as a result of the different materials used and these may be more or less important to a particular player. However, ultimately it is the execution of the design that matters most. Some pertinent examples: Some of the most highly regarded flutes are the vintage Louis Lot flutes, many of which were made of nickel as opposed to silver or gold which has a lot more cache or “bling”. Beautifully executed design which yielded gorgeous tone. On a saxophone the material used for the “ligature” which is the little mechanical device that holds the vibrating reed on the mouthpiece can have a significant effect on the response and sound of the instrument. Again, it is “close to the source” so it will have a significant effect. However, I doubt that when a player (Parker) is looking for money for his next fix that he is worried about the material used for his ligature. He would use tape or a shoestring if he had to. Thanks again. |
pryso, wonderful clip; I enjoyed that very much. Fantastic and very interesting commentary by an extremely well informed and articulate panel. Aside from the insights into Mingus, they directly or indirectly touched on so many of the broader topics that have been brought up and argued on this thread. Great to hear that kind of insightful commentary on such a deep subject that is this great music and it’s great personalities. Thanks! |
I do love those tracks, pryso; the “Ascenseur” tracks, while enjoyable and mood setting, not as much. I’ve had the record “Jazz Track” for many years and as you imply have often thought of it as a precursor and partner (of sorts) to KOB. For me, one of the most interesting things about “Jazz Track” is Bill Evans’ playing on it. Those tracks were recorded a mere month or so after Miles’ “Milestones” recording. On “Jazz Track” Bill Evans replaced Red Garland in a band in which with the exception of the drummer the personnel was essentially the same; same horns and same bass player as in “Milestones”. It is fascinating to me how on “Jazz Track” Bill Evans plays in a style which is remarkably like that of Red Garland with very little use of single note lines in his solos and relying mostly on chord movement, like guitar strumming; precisely the style that set Red Garland aside from most piano players and a technique and style that Garland pioneered. Coincidence? |
Killer little known record. Red Garland, the great Phil Woods and to try and keep up with Alex a little known, but great trumpet player Ray Copeland; rest of the rhythm section not too shabby 😎 (great!): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JIRWpxSoYDw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uS4dFEzn5MU |
Love Red Garland’s feel and swagger; and that “block chord” style: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=owL-uQuVYLc |
pryso, your observations are correct and good for you for digging deeper. Yes, he plays both ways and his style is a heavier dominance of block chording. Importantly, it was the way he did it with a distinctive voicing (arrangement of notes) that he used in those block chords that gave him a distinctive sound. I disagree that this was no different than other pianists’ use of the two techniques. Yes, some players will use chords in their solos, but not with the exact same and unique voicing for each chord nor to that degree which is what gave him that unique sound. My point in comparing Evans to was that I wondered if this influenced Evans’ playing on that record. Evans plays almost exclusively in a block chord style on “Jazz Track”; rather unusual for him up until then. I could not have explained it better: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Garland **** Playing style Garland’s trademark block chord technique, a commonly borrowed maneuver in jazz piano today, was unique and differed from the methods of earlier block chord pioneers such as George Shearing and Milt Buckner. Garland’s block chords were constructed of three notes in the right hand and four in the left hand, with the right hand one octave above the left. Garland’s left hand played four-note chords that simultaneously beat out the same exact rhythm as the right-hand melody played. But unlike George Shearing’s block chord method, Garland’s left-hand chords did not change positions or inversions until the next chord change occurred. It is also worth noting that Garland’s four-note left-hand chord voicings frequently left out the roots of the chords, a chord style later associated with pianist Bill Evans. **** http://www.riccardoscivales.com/billy-boy-red-garlands-block-chords-style/ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J3UnzDeZ8lI Btw, I don’t set out to educate, but to comment based on what is important to me when listening to music. If asked, as you did, I will gladly try and explain. I hope the above links helped clarify. |
pryso, you are correct in your observation that many pianists now use that style to one degree or another and that is a very astute observation on your part. For me, the historical context of any music and the influence of players’ styles on each other as part of that historical context is as important as just about anything else. This puts a player’s style in what I think is a very important, even necessary, context. My point in pointing out Garland’s style was to highlight the importance of him in that historical context and how it may have impacted Bill Evans’ approach to the music on the Jazz Track session. One of the reasons that I thought the Mingus panel discussion was so important was that it touched on some of this inasmuch as the very deliberate and conscious effort that goes into the creation of a lot of this great music. Often it is thought to be entirely a matter of some sort of subconscious inspiration that takes over the artist (the idea of the artist’s “Muse”) when in fact it is usually a combination of that (inspiration) and deliberate and conscious “decision making”; what Mingus so perfectly referred to as “organized chaos”. **** I'm even now learning some insights on structure and presentation. That provides an avenue to listen anew. **** Exactly! It can add so much to the listening experience. Thanks for the dialogue. |
Alex, as I was posting that Phil Woods/Red Garland clip I kept hearing a little voice in my head that made me wonder exactly what you mention. I guess that little voice was correct; I had posted it previously. Glad you liked it. Very interesting observation about Red Garland and something I had not really thought about previously. I went back and listened to a few things by him and you are correct. When he plays single notes he does play in what would be called a “staccato” style; the notes are short and clipped with little if any sustain. There are two ways that a player can control the amount of sustain. When a note is struck the faster that the player lifts the finger off the key the less sustain that the note will have. Also, a piano has a sustain pedal that a player uses at his discretion in order to give notes more or less sustain. However, when Garland plays in his distinctive block chord style he does use sustain and this can be heard easily. |
Alex, you are correct they are very different players and there is no disagreement about their styles; very different general styles. However, and this is an example of the depth and complexity of the details that we try and discuss here and how there is a tendency to simply “scratch the surface”. First, if you reread my comments you will note that my comparison to Evans was a speculation or question about whether it was possible that Evans tailored his style to a degree because of who (Garland) he was replacing in the band for the the Jazz Track session. Players can do this. Ask a great piano player to sound like Corea or Hancock or McCoy and it is amazing how well they can do that when they want to. In your recent post you asked about a possible “technical’ reason why Garland seemed to have less sustain in his notes. The use of block chords when soloing, which was the basis for the Garland/Evans question, is another “technical” detail. THAT was the basis of the comparison (and possible influence) of Evans to Garland and is just one aspect of what might constitute “style”. The article I posted does a good job of explaining how Garland’s block chord style influenced, not just Evans, but many players. “Style” is many things; perceived feeling of flow (very subjective unto itself, btw), harmonic approach, tone, rhythmic feel, among many other things. One of the most interesting things in jazz is to look at who the players themselves credit as their main influences. Sometimes it seems (on the surface) to be very surprising and unexpected. It might be surprising to learn that this player: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6jQ9j1bdkI Was one of this player’s main influences (by his own admission): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xr0Tfng9SP0 |
There are two principles that I believe are really important to consider when discussing the relative merit of any music and that I have mentioned several times over the life of this thread. One is what I feel is the need for listeners who consider themselves true music lovers to have and to approach the listening experience with a certain amount of humility. What I mean by this is that we should never forget that the art form is bigger and more important that anyone one of us and our particular tastes and preferences. Our preferences and tastes in music will always color our judgment of the merit of any genre; and consequently, whether we like that genre or not is not what determines its ultimate merit. Nothing wrong with not liking any particular genre or style of music nor of having strong preferences, but to make grand statements about its merit as applicable on a universal scale is foolish and arrogant, imo. We all judge and like/dislike music according to what resonates with each of us. This is determined in great part by our age and what is familiar to us, among other things. Sure, we all like to think that we push the boundaries of the familiar and are open minded to the new, but I think that the reality is that we are all governed to some degree by what is comfortable (familiar) to us and tend to resist and resent what we perceive as challenging or perceive as destroying the familiar. The second principle is something pryso alluded to, the idea that good art is a reflection of the time of its creation. I would add that what determines the merit of any art is how well it reflects that time. We may not like what any art says about the time of its creation, but our reaction is ultimately more of a statement about each of us than about the ultimate merit of the art. Moreover, this notion is not limited to the 60’s, it is applicable to any era. Every genre or style of music, from Early music to swing, to bebop, to fusion, etc. is a reflection of the times; just as R&R was and is. There are good and artistically valid examples of each of those genres just as there are bad examples. For me, many on mary_jo’s Rock list are on a higher artistic level than some of the second and third rate “jazz” that has been produced and recorded over the years and that gets automatic cred simply because it is “jazz”. I like good rock and roll and I see no point in comparing its merits to jazz or Classical or whatever. I may not love it the way I do great Jazz or Classical, but it is certainly valid and relevant and sometimes exactly what I want to listen to. ( Besides, it’s not quite the same working out to “Kind Of Blue” 😓). Do I wish that we still lived in the era when Jazz was the “popular” music genre? Sometimes I do; but then I wake up to reality. Rock and Roll did not destroy jazz; it is a product and reflection of the times. If you don’t like it, don’t kill the messenger! Nice list, mary_jo. |
O-10, “La Paloma” is indeed beautiful music. Classic “Habanera” by a Spanish composer incorporating some of the rhythms and sounds of Cuba (Habanera/Havana). Check out this rendition by a true Spanish guitar master and part of the “Romero” guitar dynasty: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QajnO1gtxCQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtBJcaY1kw Esteban; think the Kenny G of Spanish guitar 😎 |
Glad you liked it. I also think it is outstanding. Peterson was a remarkable musician and a true gentleman. As articulate and interesting with his spoken comments as he was in his playing. I don’t think the Bach comment was in reference to MJQ. Previn says “the fellow” and I’m pretty sure he was referring to Claude Bolling who had a series of records on which he played Classical with a jazz rhythm section. The best known of these was his “Suite For Flute and Jazz Piano” with the great flutist Jean Pierre Rampal. Pleasant enough music and fun depending on one’s mood, but as Previn said “neither here nor there”. |
In case anyone is interested or curious.. First, the Bolling/Rampal Suite is not jazz and when listening one should not have that expectation. It is intended as a fusion of Classical and Jazz styles. It is “jazz like” in many places of the score and not intended to be more than that. If the listener doesn’t like Classical, Baroque music in particular, chances are he won’t like it. The flavor of its “jazz” is not unlike the way that Michel Legrand plays “jazz”. Kind of an “aristocratic” and, dare I say it?, very “white” approach to a jazz feel. In some respects it is at times reminiscent of some of the West Coast jazz (Brubeck in particular) in its use of Classical counterpoint. And remember it is mostly through-composed; little actual improvisation. As Rok would say, it could use a lot more of the blues. However, in many respects it is very charming music with a very joyous feeling and some wonderful virtuosic playing. Jean Pierre Rampal was one of the greatest Classical flutists ever. So, take your Jazz hat off when (if) listening. Not necessarily an endorsement, and you may find some things to like: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZTGaJ4nkeY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S7repRpobFA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qHMoLAqWSuE |
Good point, but Gershwin’s music is missing one of the key ingredients in Third Stream, improvisation; according to Schuller’s definition. As you often point out just because there is improvisation does not make it jazz; probably one of the reasons that, as pryso points out, Schuller did not want to refer to Third Stream as TS Jazz. Conversely, just because it has elements of Classical and Jazz (Gershwin) does not make it TS. Personally, while I think that Schuller’s reasons for giving this fusion of two musics a new title was well intended I think it points to how the preoccupation with titles and with locking music into rigid genre designations can simply confuse matters; and I suspect it was greatly a reaction to purists’ objections to the perceived “contamination” of one genre with elements of the other. Using Schuller’s own definition Ellington’s large scale orchestral works, for example, would qualify for TS designation much more than Gershwin’s. pryso makes some really interesting comments that touch on some of this with his account of how he learned to appreciate Classical by recognizing its “ties” to Jazz. Excellent observation since I think that sometimes a listener’s reaction to music is a kind of knee jerk reaction to the genre based on a preconceived notion of what the genre is supposed to be. I think that if there were a shift, or at least an openness, to focusing more on the common ground in all music and it’s performance that musical tastes would broaden. Then the focus can be on the quality of the performance or how well the composer exploits the things that “tie” the different genres and which may be familiar to the listener from experience with a favorite genre. Is a rhythmic groove by Miles’ rhythm section “better” than a great orchestra playing Bach? Does the presence of strings on a recording like Bird With Strings diminish the greatness of some of Bird’s very best perfomances on record? Take the exact same string arrangements, but have a Hammond B3 play them instead. Does the music all of a sudden become more “jazz”? Anyway, great posts all. Some fairly recent TS from the great clarinet virtuoso Eddie Daniels. The album is “Breakthrough” and I’m almost shocked that there is only this cut from it on the Tube: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jHxCm9G54ZQ |
Well, pryso, I would have bet my “six eye” copy of that great record that it would be the one in the link even before clicking on it 😉. I think that record makes my point about how genre designation can create a lot of confusion; and, for me, ultimately a pointless exercise. That record is as good an example of what most people would call Third Stream as any...most people. How about some more confusion? There is something that is left out of most definitions of “Third Stream” that is, for me, what makes me say “Third Stream!”; and is the thing that, if forced, would make me say that the record is a jazz record...more than anything else. I am talking about the ATTITUDE of the music and the playing. To my ears many “Third Stream” compositions, in an attempt to straddle the line between Jazz and Classical, end up sounding somewhat self-consciously deliberate and stiff and without the looseness and relaxed attitude of good jazz. To my ears this record has very much a jazz attitude. Whatever anyone chooses to call it, it is great music. |
Bingo!!! You are exactly right. “Method” and “building blocks”; and in most cases a strict framework within which the player has to work. A strict and predetermined framework of form and harmony and, if the improvisation is to be good, respect for the melody of the tune in that improvisation. Moreover, to suggest that because a concert pianist has the music written out that the music that he creates comes from a place that is “external”, not “internal” or not from the heart and that it doesn’t reach people on as deep a level as jazz is simply mistaken. This is not a matter of opinion; it may be so for a particular listener, but that is a statement about the listener and his tastes and not about the music. I would suggest to anyone who would dispute this to take a sheet of music (a Beethoven piano sonata would do just fine) and look at it long and hard. What do you hear? Anything? ...... I didn’t think so. “Building blocks”. I like it; but doesn’t “nuts and bolts” have more charm? 😉 |
O-10, as I have said many times previously I admire that you put jazz musicians on such a high pedestal; and deservedly so. Jazz obviously reaches you on a very deep and personal level and that’s a beautiful thing. But the achievement of jazz musicians in the area of expression or ability to reach the soul of the listener is no greater than that of a great Classical musician and I don’t understand the need to knock one down in order to build up the other; at least that’s how it seems. Excellent comments by rok, pryso and acman3; and very accurate. Some further thoughts and sorry for the long post; but if you’re going to tell me that I am “totally wrong”.....😎...all in good fun. The often referenced account of Miles “fixing” Herbie’s “mistake” is interesting, but as with many things “Miles” it has been somewhat overblown because, while it certainly is not an “easy” thing to do, it really is the kind of thing that all musicians do all the time to varying degrees and in different ways. Herbie played a “wrong” note in a chord; wrong as defined by being a deviation from the “strict and predetermined framework of harmony” that comprised whatever tune they happened to be playing. Miles heard that wrong note (as most good musicians would) and incorporated that note in his improvised solo. That is exactly what Rok described, and he also pointed out they were not “starting from zero and making something up”; it simply doesn’t work that way. In this case it was an astute musical reaction/interaction by Miles in the realm of the harmony of the tune. Fundametally, this is really no more impressive than what a concert pianist has to do in the realm of rhythm during a performance of, say, a piano concerto with orchestra by having to react and “adjust” to varying tempo changes, very subtle or large, by the players in the orchestra; or even having to react and adjust to a mistake by a player or conductor while still making it all sound seamless. Yes, those mistakes do happen. Unless we are talking about “free jazz”, a jazz musician has to memorize the harmonic progression of a tune, know the form of the tune and understand harmony in a very deep way that allows him to compose a solo that makes sense; and that, like most what we are touching on here, is just scratching the surface. Acman3’s description re your experience with watching those bebop players just show up a play together is very good and, as concerns this topic, analogous to, say, an “All Star” baseball game. They may have never played together before, but they speak the same language; a “language” that had to be learned. The musicians had all learned the frameworks of the various tunes. O-10, there has to be a willingness to understand some basics about the music making process for any of this to make sense. Most of these basics are what pryso correctly referred to as the “tie” between jazz and Classical (and any genre, really). My observation is that you have an aversion to understanding any of these basics because (I think) you feel that somehow going to that place detracts from the emotional part of the experience and somehow shortens the pedestal that you put jazz musicians on. All I can say is that it doesn’t. As always, no problem if you’re not interested in going there; we all approach listening to music differently and have different emotional agendas for its place in our lives. Speaking of Herbie and Rok’s recent mention of Gershwin. While I always hesitate to speak about my personal professional experiences perhaps this may help, in a roundabout way, illustrate some of what we are talking about re jazz vs classical musicians and the fact that while they are different disciplines in some ways they share a lot of common ground as far as fundamental musical values are concerned. Both disciplines come from the same place as concerns emotion which seems to be the point of contention. Over the last few years it has become very “in vogue” in the Classical concert scene for jazz pianists to appear as soloists playing Gershwin’s “Rhapsody In Blue” for piano and orchestra; one of the most popular works in orchestral music. Also related to Rok’s earlier comment about Gershwin and Third Stream is that while the piece, as composed and as traditionally performed, has no improvisation, this new “approach” to Rhapsody is for the jazz piano soloist to improvise during some of the extended solo sections that do not include the orchestra. I have had the privilege of being part of performances of this piece with various orchestras with four well known jazz pianists, Herbie, Makoto Ozone, Marcus Roberts and Chick Corea. No name dropping intended and I was a just a humble player in the orchestra. Now, it is generally acknowledged by musicians and critics (for whatever that may be worth) that with very few and rare exceptions these “experiments” with Rhapsody fall flat and dismally at that. Why? Two main reasons. One could point to the fact that, inevitably, the soloist strays too far away from the style of the music as intended by the composer (Gershwin) and the piece loses coherence. Interestingly, it was Marcus Roberts who did the best job of improvising within the style of Gershwin. However, that wasn’t the most glaring problem with the performances and what is usually cited; and here is the punchline of where I am going with all this. All four are great piano players (duh!). They all played all the correct notes as written on the page and played them with great technical skill. But, and this is a big but, compared to what a great Classical soloist can do with the written parts of that work the jazz payers all sounded somewhat stiff, hesitant to a degree, and emotionally flat. Great jazz players falling short in the very area that is being suggested is the purview of jazz players. Obviously no disrespect intended toward these amazing players; only meant to point out that a classical pianist who understands that language on a higher level than a jazz musician and who perfected that particular discipline can do a better job of doing justice to the music and touching the listener on an emotional level. Just as a good jazz player can do a better job with a jazz tune than a classical musician can. |
Of course they are yours, O-10. Good as yours, which is why you posted them. Now, I would have preferred, as pryso suggested, to get back to “regular programming”, but if you prefer to cherry pick comments and submit them out of context as proof of something that’s ok I suppose. You simply don’t get it, and worse, don’t seem to want to get it. Suggestion: take a deep breath, somehow try to be a little open minded, go over the last two or so days’ worth of posts on the subject and maybe you might get it this time. Regards. |
