**** When I posted this brother Clarke a year or so ago, everyone started cries of outrage, boo!!!, hiss!!!! etc....... even worst than with the Bey Sisters. Now he is beloved by all. Go figure. **** I recently mentioned how much I love Elis Regina for the absence of affectation in her singing. Rachel Ferrell’s singing is the opposite of that. I seem to recall that the issue back then was not Clarke; it was Ferrell herself with her over the top vocal histrionics. From the archives: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/jazz-for-aficionados?page=39Also in that page from the “archives” can be found commentary about how musical tastes change over time. So true. Back then (the archives) this comment (re Wynton) would have been unthinkable: **** Greatest Jazz trumpet players? The list would have to be very long for him to be on it. **** There was a time that ANY criticism directed at Wynton’s jazz playing was met with a lot of resistance. Rok, not picking on you, but just using this to make a point about the “old vs new” (old timers vs newbies) issue and that of changing tastes. If anyone of us thinks that our individual assessment of a jazz artist’s ultimate worth or standing in the grand scheme of things (overall history of the music) is not influenced to some degree by what that that artist REPRESENTS in ways other than strictly musical I think we would be kidding ourselves. **** But he is so much more to jazz than a trumpet player **** Exactly. As nsp pointed out: **** We all hear differently , have different life experiences and come from different backgrounds. **** Music from different eras represent different things to each of us due to the above. A certain era in the music’s history may give us a sense of nostalgia. It may remind us of what our parents listened to (could be a negative or positive) or what was going on in society as a whole at the time which may be something that has special significance to us. We all know that jazz is sadly less popular today than it was in the past. However, I submit that if one considers today’s level of overall activity in jazz to that during its heyday, the number of players making “significant contributions” (to quote Rok again) to the music and who are pushing the envelope of its evolution is, percentage-wise, about the same as it ever was. As has been pointed out many times jazz evolves whether we like where it’s going or not. Some of us like where it’s going and some of us don’t; this based on the factors mentioned above. Nothing wrong with not liking where it’s going or with being “stuck” (I don’t mind) in a certain prior era. I think the important thing is to not be dismissive of the current era and its great players as necessarily “inferior” to those of the past when in many cases it is a matter of their being different and appealing to a different sensibility. Imo, to not appreciate and embrace this simple fact is, ironically, to not understand something very basic about what the art form is about. Players like Stanley Clarke, Chick Corea, Joe Lovano and others are phenomenal musicians who in some ways are or have taken the music to places that the greats from the past never did nor could have and I frankly don’t see the point in always comparing the new to the old at the expense of appreciating what it is that the new are bringing to the table. Again, re the issue of what players REPRESENT: **** Miles once said, there is nothing a person can do on trumpet that Louis Armstrong has not done already. This means, making a significant contribution gets harder as time goes on. **** It probably does get harder, but it continues to happen. However, Miles’ admiration for and understanding of Armstrong’s huge contribution as one of the grandaddies of jazz and all that this REPRESENTS caused him to utter one of the biggest bits of hyperbole ever. We all know how great Louis was. His playing was like a distillation of all that is what jazz is ultimately all about: telling a story with music and he did it with a simplicity (“absence of affectation”) and swagger that still sets the standard for some. But, the truth is that there is much that players have “done on the trumpet” since Louis that he could not even get close to doing. He couldn’t have played bebop like Dizzy, nor the blues like Lee Morgan nor abstract like Miles himself. It sounds nice to suggest that he did, but it’s not so. Music reflects the time of its creation and in many ways it was a simpler time back then. Rok, send me the royalties bill for quoting you so many times 😊 |
|
**** Remember Pops said " If you can’t dance to it, it ain’t Jazz ". I didn’t say that, Louis Armstrong said it. ****
He also famously said: “Bebop sounds like Chinese music”. I guess bebop is not jazz either.
**** The problem is some folks just can’t accept Jazz for what it is. They want to change it, until they like it. ****
Nah! I think you have it backwards. It is Jazz that can’t accept Jazz for what it is (in a manner of speaking).
Now, about Ruby....
|
Up in the wilds of upstate NY with VERY limited and sporadic internet, so need to make it quick before it goes down again. Informative and spirited posts all. Thanks! Tying together a few recent mentions: As nsp points out, Wayne Shorter was Miles’ pick for permanent replacement in what, for me, was the greatest quintet ever; my favorite, anyway. I guess this is not Jazz since I doubt music like this was heard in the bordellos of Mississippi. Hey, Rok how do you know so much about bordellos in Mississippi 😊? https://youtu.be/-NSJtCdlhe4 |
**** The new ’Jazz’ musicians want to change Jazz music, until they can play it. I don’t blame them. Everyone has to eat. ****
No, they don’t want to “change it until they can play it”; you simply don’t understand what it means to be a creative musician and what drives them. Do you really think that jazz musicians pushing the envelope make more money than those who play what audiences already recognize and like? Really? The opposite is true. Where do you get your data? Moreover, if you are suggesting that they “changed” it so that they could play it you would also be very mistaken. You obviously have no idea how much harder it is to play many modern jazz compositions compared to a typical and familiar blues-based composition with its comfy and predictable harmonic progressions and Chin-Chin-ka-Chin rhythms. We can disagree about stylistic differences, but that is a separate matter. Each successive era in jazz history has posed new musical challenges compared to the previous era. What is baffling is how with so much proof before you of how jazz has evolved (changed to use your word) over the years that you think that it would all of a sudden stop changing. Why would it? Does ragtime sound like Dixieland? Does swing sound like bebop? Does bebop sound like hard bop? And on and on. Oh, I get it...it is suppoised to stop changing (evolving) when it starts to move beyond what you like or understand otherwise it becomes “noise”. Got it.
**** I think it was perfectly reasonable that the music of Bird and Dizzy would sound like Chinese music to Pop’s ears, Especially when you consider the music that Louis Played, and the music that proceeded Bebop. ****
++++ I think it is perfectly reasonable that the music of new Jazz musicians would sound like noise to Rok’s ears. Especially when you consider the music that Rok likes and understands and the music that preceded modern jazz. ++++
|
Welcome back, O-10. Btw, I don’t think Rok is ever talking to the wind; we hear him loud and clear. Keep feeling better. |
Re Mose Allison “Ever Since The World Ended”. Very nice clip. The first saxophone solo (alto) is indeed Arthur Blythe. The tenor solo at 2:45 is in fact Bennie Wallace. Excellent call, nsp! This record caused quite a stir when it came out: https://youtu.be/pVU101QQRa8 |
Excellent Basie, mary_jo. Thanks! Nice play on words too.
|
|
“ at the Sands”, great choice. That’s the one! “Q”, music director. |
|
Miles said he did not want his music to be called jazz PRECISELY because of what we have seen here recently and on and off for about five years now. The insistence on the part of some to limit the definition to what he or she has decided it should be and nothing else. Sound familiar? And this, as if they were truly qualified to be so opinionated and limiting, not to mention dismissive and insulting of other’s opinions; especially when those opinions are held by listeners who are clearly experienced and astute. Talk about “bogus”! Miles felt that attaching the “jazz” label to it was far too limiting and went counter to the true spirit of jazz: improvisatory creativity and boundless search for new ways of expression. The very meaning which ironically seems to elude some. Worse still is when so many misconceptions and distortions, not to mention contradictions, are bandied about as if they were truth with not one iota of humility and deference to the simple fact that compared to some of the musical geniuses that we discuss here we have a great deal to learn. **** just that it is no longer Jazz. Post-Bitches Brew I assume. **** Wrong. He said it well before he started playing the kind of jazz that some would insist is not jazz at all. **** The public decides who and what is great and good, and what is not great and good. **** One of the recurring and mistaken “gems”. Kenny G anyone? Informed, thoughtful and open-minded listeners determine what is good (for themselves). **** Why is it that Jazz is the only genre that MUST evolve? People still love Bach, Beethoven, Mozart etc....... no matter how much noise the Stravinsky types make. No one is throwing their Classical CDs in the trash because the music is old. Why should I dump Ellington. **** The height of absurdity (sorry, but the “bogus” comment opened that door for me). All genres evolve and do. To feel that Stravinsky is noise speaks volumes. Now we get to the good stuff as concerns this thread. Just who is saying “dump Ellington”? I have always found it very telling that those who see validity in quality new jazz are never dismissive of quality old jazz and do nothing but appreciate it as well; there is room for both. Moreover, they are often also the most informed and astute re old jazz. **** they crave recognition of their talents and their efforts from the public. **** Hate to break it to you, but what artists crave the most is recognition from fellow artists; they are each other’s toughest critics. **** Change does not mean better. It’s just different. **** Who said anything about “better”? Problem is the narrow-minded insist that change necessarily means worse. It does not. Ok, this one takes the cake. So, Mose Allison, jazz pianist, composer, singer and recording artist only THINKS that he is playing jazz. But, you know better, he really isn’t. Not that it is a kind of jazz that you don’t particularly like; it isn’t jazz at all. Poor guy doesn’t have a clue as to what he’s doing. Got it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LEZSSH6BLDo |
**** Btw, I didn’t say his music was not Jazz ****
You’ve been saying it is not jazz since you started posting here. Pleas don’t make me have to go to the “archives” to prove you wrong again.
**** Does not even pass the common sense test. Just something you said to Refute my point. You can’t eat or pay your rent off of peer group acclaim ****
I never say anything just to refute a point. Go spend a few decades around musicians of all persuasions and then get back to me. You have no idea of what you speak.
**** I asked a few questions in my previous post, concerning new ’Jazz’ and the players thereof.. I see you were selective in ignoring them. hmmmmmmmmmm. Makes a body wonder. ****
Perhaps you mean these:
**** 5. What year was the last Jazz Standard written?
6. These modern guys spend a lot of time playing, or trying to play, Trane, Parker et al. I wonder why? ****
Be careful what you wish for. I was merely trying to spare you any further embarrassment since the answers are so obvious and I found it hard to believe that you would have to ask. Just a few modern jazz standards that come to mind:
Birdland
Maiden Voyage
Wave
Forest Flower
Chameleon
Spain
A Child Is Born
Watermelon Man
Footprints
Most written in the late 70’s- early 80’s. Of course, and the key point, I have no doubt that you understand that just as it took decades for the songs that would eventually be considered “standards” to be considered as such, it will also take worthy newer compositions a comparable length of time. And, I’m also certain that you understand that most “jazz standards” were not written as jazz tunes at all, but were written for Broadway and other popular genres.
Re the players:
It is no surprise that you would not be able to hear that what good post -Coltrane players are doing is an extension of Trane without sounding LIKE Trane. Others still sound nothing like Trane (Lovano). Cannonball, Phil Woods, Charles McPherson and others were an extension of Bird, so should we ask why they were trying so hard to sound like Bird? Besides, I don’t think anyone who by his own admission has never liked Bird’s playing much is qualified to ask the question.
As always this nonsense gets very tiresome. Just what is it that you gain by denigrating others’ viewpoints which, if anything, are inclusive of others’ tastes?
**** That’s where we agree that everyone will be right an equal number of times. ****
Interesting.
|
**** Some songs are best left to Sam Cooke and Nina Simone. All that, 'on demand' or 'instant' soul gets tiresome.**** Agree. Before Simone, the original version: https://youtu.be/eFcusdmFwgQ |
O-10, I appreciate your comments. There is nothing wrong with disagreement nor even with dispute when it is handled with a modicum of respect for others and for others’ point of view.
**** I am not denigrating anyone or anything. Just stating my point of view, along with a few facts. ****
Rok, those relatively new to this thread may not be aware that this latest dispute is nothing new. As I have suggested many times previously there is a way to express one’s point of view without referring to others’ points of view as “bogus”, “noise”, etc. Why that is not obvious nor a priority when having a “discussion” is a mystery to me, but imo that is what causes problems; and this has been demonstrated time and time again. Clearly, your “facts” may not be someone else’s. Perhaps this example will cause you to reconsider your “facts” (and “sabbatical”?) and consider the possibility that there may be something else at play here:
**** Having done so, I think I will take a sabbatical along with the OP. As someone said recently, my kind of music is no longer discussed here. ****
I went back one month over this thread’s posts (to 3/7) and took a look at all the posts. I stopped at 4/6 with the first Mose Allison post. I stopped there because that seems to have been the catalyst for the recent dispute, but mostly because I couldn’t take the counting any more 🤪. I divided the posts during this period into three categories. Each submission of a music clip was counted as 1 whether it was accompanied by commentary or not. A commentary without a clip was also counted as 1. I didn’t need this exercise to know what the results would be, but since “facts” seem to matter most let’s present some facts. The three categories were:
1. Music clips that were presented without any claim of being jazz of any kind (Doo wop, Classical, Soul), and/or commentary unrelated to music.
2. Music clips of, or commentary supportive of “new jazz” (loosely speaking, post-Bitches Brew, to use your criterion).
3. Music clips of, or commentary supportive of “old jazz” (loosely speaking, pre-Bitches Brew, to use your criterion). And btw, the majority of these were submitted by those also supportive of “new jazz”.
I hope I will be forgiven for being off by 10 or so in each category; expediency demanded a bit of a rush job. I believe the results are representative of the entire history of this thread. The results:
1. 95
2. 65
3. 250 !!!!!!
Begs the question: Exactly what is the problem? I hope you reconsider.
|
**** Since "Bitches Brew" came out in 1970, there is no way you can call jazz after that "new jazz". If so, there is a ton of new jazz that I like. **** Not my criterion (dividing line). I would prefer to call it simply jazz. Your comment makes my point. Why attach those divisive labels to it which come with preconceived notions and biases? It does the music a disservice. Of course there is a ton of jazz to like after BB. There still is. Nice Salvant clips. I haven’t always liked her that much, but she sounds great here. Thanks for the clips. I like the piano player too. His bio is a great testament to the scope and depth of many of today’s young players and shatters a lot of the preconceived notions and biases that some of the “old jazz” hardliners hang on to. Check it out: http://www.aarondiehl.com/aaron-diehl-bioIn answer to your question: Well, if you go to the very source of that style (stride), it would have to be James P. Johnson or Willie “The Lion” Smith, but most associate Fats Waller with the style. |
Excellent posts all. nsp makes a key point:
**** I think where this discussion gets bogged down is in STYLISTIC differences. ****
**** that when jazz music changes stylistically that the listener may change how they listen to the music to be able to appreciate what the musicians are attempting to convey. Or to put it another way it takes a different set of ears to absorb and appreciate a new direction. Some people try and they get it , others try and the music does not resonate with them. ****
That point is so important and goes to what I am afraid is an old stereotype. That of young players and the whole “music school” myth.
**** I've also noticed how today's artists can excel at playing classical, but not jazz, or they can play jazz as long as it's written down. That tells me artists of today, are as good as artists of yesterday, when it comes to their instrument, but they haven't mastered the jazz vocabulary or feel. ****
O-10, I have to respectfully correct you on that point. I am not sure where or why you have this notion that good players today can play jazz only when it is written down or that they can’t excel at it. That suggests that they don’t improvise. It is simply not true and goes to nsp’s point. It also seems to contradict some of what you have said in your last few posts. If they are not improvising it is not jazz. THAT is a given. They most certainly can improvise; and some do it brilliantly. They play in a style that apparently does not resonate with you. That’s fine, but don’t short change them. If anything, many excellent young players today have absorbed a broader vocabulary than most of the old guard. It is the style (feel) that is a distillation of all the previous styles that perhaps does not resonate with you. Moreover, young players today still hone their craft in clubs and jam sessions as they always have. That is another stereotype. On a smaller scale than in the past, but on any given night in NYC you can find good jazz at several clubs. What is different is that in SOME cases they also have a more formal training as instrumentalists. They can do things on their instruments that many of the older players could not. That opens a lot of possibilities. Again, it is the style that is different.
|
O-10, thanks for your comments. I don’t understand an “observation” of something that cannot be there. The issue of whether current players are improvising or not is not a matter of observation it is a matter of fact or not; and it is a very simple matter to establish. I have no issue with you not liking the way that modern players play, but I think they at least deserve credit for what they are in fact doing. I don’t understand the comment about Mingus. Those examples may be the best for you, but I don’t understand the relevance here. I would appreciate some clarification on this and perhaps some clips of examples of prominent modern players in which you feel that their solos are “written down”. Feels like we have done a complete about face on the issue of modern players. I hope not. Btw, re Aaron Diehl’s style and your question: what are your thoughts? Again, some really great comments by nsp, bluesy, pjw and pryso as well. I think that the spirit of the “ESSENCE” of jazz that nsp talks about is something worth striving for as listeners. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V69Flv9XqA0Future jazz standard?: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CzJ7jLAn4Iw |
**** Maybe only after having your peers play your song(s) many times will a pieceor body of music be then considered to be a jazz "standard". ****
That’s exactly right. It becomes a jazz “standard” because players like to play a certain tune and the tune becomes part of the jazz lexicon over time. Not all tunes lend themselves to jazz interpretation nor are they necessarily good vehicles for jazz improvisation. Players like tunes with a good melody, but also with interesting harmonic changes that have a certain musical logic to them. Or, as in the case of modal jazz (KOB), they have a “simplicity” or economy of harmonic movement that, in a way, opens up more possibilities to the improviser as he is not bound to the constantly changing harmonic backdrop. At the other end of the spectrum, sometimes players simply like the challenge of a tune like “Giant Steps” which, more than anything, is a test of a player’s ability to “think” VERY quickly on his feet with its very fast changing harmonies.
|
|
ghosthouse, very nice!!! Loved the “It’s One Big Party” clip. Thanks for that. Love Peter Erskine!!! What a nice and light feel he has; one of my favorite drummers. Really enjoyed Chuck Manning’s tenor playing. Knew the name but had not heard his playing. It’s interesting to me that while he has a much (!) more modern harmonic concept his tone immediately reminded of Harold Land who was from an entirely different era in jazz; a little dry with just a little edge and never sounding like the horn is about to split at the seams. Land hasn’t gotten much attention here although I think O-10 posted some clips a while back. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NT9LGsVmUnU |
|
Definitely some Rollins and more than a little Joe Henderson; along with his own thing, of course. I remember the first couple of times I heard Lovano. It was back in the 80s when he was in the section in the Mel Lewis Jazz Orchestra (previously the Thad Jones/Mel Lewis big band and currently The Vanguard Jazz Orchestra). You know, I wasn’t that impressed by his playing. It was mostly me, and because I was too preoccupied with the post-Coltrane type tenor sound (think Liebman, Grossman and Berg...thanks, acman3) and I couldn’t get next to Joe’s warmer and less edgy sound which is partly a result of his preference for vintage Conn tenors as opposed to the ubiquitous Selmer horns of the Coltrane crowd. His concept has developed a great deal and I am loving what he does.
Been thinking about your question re tunes by current artists that should be standards. Here’s a few that came to mind that I think could be candidates based on the criteria that I mentioned. They at least lend themselves to be played in a jazz style. Most tunes have been around for several years and a couple have been done that way already, so time will tell. Tunes penned by current jazz players are harder to consider since not enough time has passed; although current players do borrow each other’s tunes; Again, time will tell.
NY State Of Mind (Billy Joel)
Black Cow (Steely Dan)
Maxine (Steely Dan)
I Love You Just The Way You Are (Billy Joel)
Help Me (Joni Mitchell)
|
Excellent catch! The second, third, fourth and fifth notes of the melody (played by the tenor) are the first four notes of “Giant Steps”. Organized in a different rhythm but the same note intervals. I’m impressed! I think it’s great to catch those things, The more one does it the easier it gets.
|
|
nsp, I’m sure O-10 appreciates your concern and wouldn’t mind. Hope he’s feeling better.
|
I would like to offer a different perspective on the idea behind the “raps” in Joni Mitchell’s “Mingus”. I completely understand why it can get tiresome and I do confess to skipping those tracks sometimes. I would also have to point out that I am a huge Joni Mitchell fan, not to mention Mingus and every musician that plays on this record. I love this record. To me this record is tremendous labor of love all the way around and the facts around it’s creation clearly demonstrate this. The raps are intertwined with the songs to create a certain continuity to the album as a whole. For example the rap “Funeral” is followed by the song “Chair In The Sky”. Besides, it should be noted that the raps in total take less time than the shortest of the six songs (about 3 mins in total). The playing is fantastic and even if one is not a big fan of Mitchell it’s hard to not appreciate the playing. Jaco sounds amazing, as does Wayne Shorter who is a master of economy in his very soulful soloing. And it’s Peter Erskine for real this time.
acman3, thanks for posting the clips, it had been a while since I had listened to this. |
|
It’s all around us. Jazz is not the only genre nor idiom that reflects the time of its creation (“today’s society and human relations”). All art does this to one degree or another and what ultimately determines how good the art is is how good a job it does of reflecting this. What can’t be taken out of the mix is how WE ourselves (the listeners, in this case) fit into today’s society or how comfortable we each are with the changing times. If anyone of us finds the societal moves away from “old school” values to only be a negative and without any redeeming value (iow, the type of person who believes that society today and it’s values is inherently worse than in the past) then that is the type of individual who is more prone to not like or appreciate art that reflects the current society regardless of that art’s ultimate quality as defined by criteria that are not only subjective, but also objective. As I have argued many times here every generation or society in time has created great art (jazz, as concerns this thread). I’ll post some examples shortly.
Good topic, O-10.
|
**** but I have always shared that responsibility as to what is "good jazz" and we have come to a unanimous conclusion.****
Huh? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Unanimous? With all the disagreement about new vs old jazz? Perhaps we have different definitions of “unanimous”. Not that I have an issue with disagreement, I don’t; but hardly unanimous I think. Plenty of discussion about the new music, btw. Perhaps I dreamt it 😊.
**** but I would never accept anything just because it’s new. ****
Of course not and I agree, and there was no suggestion that one should. Just as we shouldn’t accept anything simply because it’s old.
Agree re Sarah Vaughn “Send In The Clowns”. Thanks, pryso. Great choice for “standard” status and one which probably already is; performed and recorded many many times.
nsp: Sarah Vaughn “Live In Japan”, fantastic live double album. And of course, “In The Land Of Hi Fi” and “SV With Clifford Brown”. The latter two are classics and available only in mono (I believe, mine are), but great sound if somewhat “vintage”, if you know what I mean.
|
“I Walk The Line” in 9/8! Well, that dude wouldn’t pass a sobriety test in a million years. Love it! Thanks, acman3.
Interesting comment, Alex. We may be saying much the same thing...in a way. More later. |
|
|
“Jug”, from the Chicago school of tenor players. Huge, husky and very inflected sound. That “Angel Eyes” is a classic. Thanks, O-10. Eventhough most of what he played and recorded had that funky bluesy feel, he could bebop with the best of them. Check out Art Farmer and Jackie McLean. Beautiful and expended solos all the way around: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp780t2Q41MIn answer to O-10’s request to post music that is “a reflection of this society”. I think it’s good that no specific genre was specified; too limiting. I would say that this music is a reflection of todays’ society in certain ways. Unique aesthetic and attitude that rubs some the wrong way. Fabulous musicianship all the way around. Guitarist Jon Herrington is fabulous. His solo on “Planet D’Rhonda is amazing and if that is not is not great jazz then I don’t know what is: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tbGMIfCdrdkhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w-vGINaAR-whttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0u4ms4mVdcI |
|
I think Rok would like this too. One more from the same album as before. These arrangements kill me. Simply masterful and masterfully played. Inventiveness, great feel, gorgeous and soulful singing. That’s when whatever the genre is becomes irrelevant. Check out the very ending of the song and what the orchestrator had the players do. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LkfYNeQBHaE |
acman3, the Orrin Evans trio clip is amazing. What a player he is! Reminds me of the type of clarity that Herbie Hancock has in his playing. Incredible sense of direction in his soloing. Loved it, and thanks for that. |
I would say that Nancy Wilson was less popular than singers like Sarah Vaughn among the jazz crowd. I don’t know, but I’m not too sure total record sales would support that idea across all the genres that she covered. Nancy Wilson recorded more solo records than Vaughn and during the ‘60s alone had nine top 100 hits including a couple of top 20 in the pop/r&b charts. Extremely flexible singer who was clearly a jazz singer in the true sense of the world, but could also sound great singing a torch song or a pop/r&b ballad. Singers like Ella and Sarah who were arguably standard setters as jazz singers simply didn’t sound as “in their element” outside their comfort zone. Ella singing the Beatles songbook is mostly great because she’s Ella, but a little strange to my ears. One more: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HnxyIMTwqIM |
Maybe a little 😊 That Sarah “Something” just doesn’t work for me. |
Well, I probably would not buy a recording of Zimmy singing “Something”, but I actually liked the way he sang the song. It’s a rock ballad and that is a lot closer to home for Dylan than for Vaughn. Just as John Lennon would probably not be able to pull off “Lush Life”, Sarah is out of her stylistic comfort zone. The song works best with a certain feel that is decidedly not “jazzy”. It almost makes one cringe to hear Sarah swing some of the phrases. Sometimes we think that someone as great as Sarah would be able to sing anything. It’s not so. Listeners can always benefit by being more genre neutral, imo. Same thing for singers/players. Not all can hide their musical “accent”. Like an American actor speaking with a British accent, but it’s obvious that it is not his native accent. Some artists cultivate and use that kind of flexibility in their style while others don’t or can’t.
|
The original “Sugar” IS smoking. One of my favorites in the CTI catalog. I haven’t always been a fan of CTI’s sometimes overproduced studio sound, but that one is a classic. Here’s one by some young guys with a couple of the “old heads” onboard. Bobby Malach has one of the nicest modern tenor sounds of all the young (ish) post-Coltrane tenor guys, but for me it’s trumpeter Brian Lynch that really tears it up on this one: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qSXAamw5Fc4bluesy, I liked the Philadelphia Project clip, especially “Just The Two Of Us”; McBride sounds great. Had a little trouble finding the magic in “Mr. Magic”. Nice, but for me “Mr. Magic” is so much about the rhythmic groove of the original that the tune kinda gets lost when playing with in such loose way; I kept thinking it was a very long introduction to the tune that never came. Boy does this bring back memories for this old head: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2Jvdy6khEmA |
Grover was an underrated saxophone player, imo. Often lumped in with the “smooth jazz” saxophone crowd who typically don’t get much respect as “serious” players, he was actually a really good player who could play very sensitively and delicately when he needed to; unlike a lot of the obnoxious (to me) sounding smooth jazz saxophone guys. This is a beautiful and interesting record. His take on some of the most beautiful operatic songs or arias ever written. Very sweet soprano saxophone sound: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DBTao1tRkishttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wdav76y0asYhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FI3of1s4ed4 |
Herbie Hancock’s “Headhunters” band was one of the greatest bands ever assembled. Thanks, acman3. I posted that a couple of years ago and as I remember Rok’s comment was about Herbie’s shoes 😊. Absolutely killer ensemble. If one puts his genre-neutral hat on this band becomes every bit as great as any of the great jazz ensembles. Amazingly solid grooves and musical interplay. I’ve posted this before. For me, this record is a masterpiece. The synth sounds can sound a little dated; but, for my tastes, the creativity, ensemble playing and soloing is about as good as it gets. And if this is not jazz “reflecting society” at that time........If anything, check out the interplay between Herbie and drummer Harvie Mason in “Sly” (22:14) during the piano solo at 27:40: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3m3qOD-hhrQRok, you out there? |
|
**** Pay attention people!! ****
Oh, I’m paying attention; big time. So, what do you suggest we do re the pointy headed do gooders. I would not be nearly as generous with my description, btw.
(I had a feeling you were out there 😊) |
“Headhunters” ideally should be listened to beginning to end. It is one of those records where the tunes are in a certain order and that work as a “Suite” of sorts. That’s the way I hear it anyway. One of the biggest selling jazz albums of all time and credited for introducing many listeners to jazz who were previously r&b and funk listeners.
|
|
Don’t know about “best”, but Herbie Hancock is definitely one of the best and he is far more than just a fusion artist. His creds as a straight-ahead jazz artist are beyond reproach as his discography clearly demonstrates. Like the recently discussed career of Miles Davis, with whom Herbie made some of the most memorable and important straight-ahead jazz ever recorded, Herbie’s solo career makes it almost impossible to compare recordings from different periods as they can be so different from the other. He is also a very good Classical pianist. As good an example of a genre-neutral player as there is. The playing and creativity is always at the highest level no matter what style he plays; always with his own identifiable and very hip (modern) approach to harmony. And funky as hell! Personally, I would say that Chick Corea is very much Herbie’s peer as a fusion player. Corea’s Jazz creds, while not quite as impressive as Herbie’s are still very impressive in their own right. Two different players stylistically with each having his own rhythmic touch. To my ears, Herbie has the more obvious roots in the blues with a relentless soulfulness. Corea’s playing, especially on his fusion projects, has always had for me a kind of wide-eyed “perkiness” with a rhythmic feel slightly more on the front side of the beat and brighter tone and chord voicings. Neither is “better”; just different, imo. Still, as far as overall influence in jazz, I think few players on any instruments have been as important as Herbie. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JHvegyDAi7Qhttps://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYe02mm9HjxK1qoMNToWjJD4HUQhLZkUj |
|
|
|
Very interesting topic, pjw. I will offer some thoughts later today when I have some time. |
Re the ”first” bebop recording: pjw brings up what I think is one of the most interesting footnotes in the history of jazz. Interesting first and foremost for the musical significance of it, but also because of other factors around this important event. There is controversy and debate as to whether that 1944 recording is, in fact, the first bebop recording. The controversy stems from the fact that most of the music from those sessions cannot be clearly and definitively be indentified as “bebop”. The music contains important elements of bebop, but it many ways it still does not sound like what we normally associate with the style. Bebop, like all other jazz “sub-genres” did not appear all of a sudden like a spontaneous musical mutation; it evolved relatively slowly out of the “swing’ style of the previous two decades. Consider that the most common outlet for musicians during that time was the big band where players did not have nearly as much room for soloing and it was in jam sessions and the nfamous “cutting sessions” where players challenged each other and explored tunes with more complicated harmonies and faster tempos (the hallmarks of bebop). This is one of the cuts from that 1944 recording: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mxRfm83tyzAThat was 1944. Now here is the 1939 (!) recording by Coleman Hawkins that is generally considered to be THE groundbreaking recording that pointed the way to what would evolve into bebop. Not considered bebop per se, but the first major move in that direction. This classic recording of “Body And Soul” was revolutionary in that it was the first demonstrating a style of improvisation that was a departure from the traditional swing style of the time. Instead of simply “gliding” through the harmonies of the tune as most swing players did, Hawkins clearly and unambiguously outlines each and every chord change; a hallmark of bebop. Still, the tone is very much that of a swing player. Notice the similarity of style to the 1944 recording although the style is clearly not as developed nor as hinting of bebop: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zUFg6HvljDEThe other interesting factors around that time are related to our recent attempt at discussing how music reflects society. Music can do this in the abstract aspects of its musical message or through the circumstances around its creation. The circumstances were very interesting; two in particular. This was 1939 or 1944 depending on which side of the argument one is on and there was a world war going on. The big bands suffered greatly as many musicians were drafted into the army and dance halls where the bands played closed. Because of this players gravitated toward smaller ensembles; another hallmark of bebop. Secondly, the American Federarion Of Musicians went on strike against all commercial record companies from 1942 to 1944 because of a dispute over royalty payments. The longest strike in history by an entertainment union meant no commercial recordings of any kind for two (!) years. The significance of this is obvious and very unfortunate. There is practically nothing that was recorded of the music during two of its most important formative years. Had players had access to recordings of players in other cities during this transformative time, who knows how much more quickly the music would have progressed to what is readily identified as bebop. 1945, only one year after the Hawkins recording. Sounds much more like what we think of as bebop: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-sttF6_NIOQ |
O-10, please reread my post and try a little harder to understand what I wrote and don’t be so quick to dismiss; would make for much nicer dialogue. Ok, then, since I made no claim as to what the first bebop recording was and your mistaken interpretation of what I wrote suggested to YOU that I had, and since you objected to what you THOUGHT was my choice, then you must have some ideas. So, what is it that you think IS the first or is one of more importance than the one I posted? I assume you refer to Body And Soul. Cheers. |
