nsp, interesting question and great perspective. Personally, I would have to say that I don’t hear enough bebop in that 1944 recording to call it “bebop”. I don’t think that there is going to be universal agreement on where exactly it was that the style crossed some magical demarcation line into territory that can be called the first full-fledged bebop. The transitional recordings were just that, transitional.
pryso, listened to the soundtrack. I don’t think Altman got it wrong at all; quite the opposite. With the possible exception of “Yeah, Man” with its brisk tempo, I don’t hear bebop in that music. Kansas City, like other important jazz hubs, had its own style and sound and I think that music captures it well. Most of that music is based on simple song structures, mainly simple blues forms, the melodies don’t have the characteristic angular or “spiky” character of bebop tunes; nor the need for the virtuosity that playing bebop required. Some of the writing does sound modern, the way that ‘30’s Ellington can sound modern and especially coming from Armstrong/Teagarden. Great soundtrack. Thanks. |
Of course it was evolutionary. So, if it was not evolutionary how did it come to be? O-10, there is a great deal written on the subject by the players themselves not to mention jazz historians. Please explain how “osmosis” helps to understand its history. Thanks. |
O-10, as always, I am sorry that a more enlightened discussion is not possible. There are two things going on here as is usual. You want to be right about an incomplete viewpoint that you hold no matter how much evidence is presented that points to the contrary. Then, you make an argument for your viewpoint with assertions that do not contradict the opposing viewpoint, but which are, in fact, part of the whole picture; as if this would make your case. You don’t see that irony because your viewpoint is incomplete. We tend to see what we want to see. I would simply ask this question: how would it be possible for someone to understand the evolutionary process that led to bebop when that listener, by his own admission, has not listened to very much of, nor is interested in listening to, the music that preceded it? Nice clips, btw. |
|
You are welcome, pjw. There are trends in musical styles and often a player develops a certain style that becomes the stylistic seed for a younger player to then take further. The player who contributed that seed may or may not take it further himself. This is a key characteristic of any artistic endeavor. It’s simply the way it works. In the case of Hawkins, his playing, compared to that of swing players before him was anything but “nothing compared to Bird”. Think of it as a stepping stone between classic swing and bebop. I believe that was my point.
I have a challenge for all who don’t believe in the evolutionary process that, in this case, led to bebop. Much has been written by musicians themselves and jazz historians about Coleman Hawkins’ place in all this. A simple internet search of Hawkins “Body And Soul” will yield dozens of hits. There is also much written in support of the idea re Hawkins/bebop. Produce written commentary that disputes or discredits this well established footnote in jazz history. One would think that given how much has been written in support that there would be at least a little bit in opposition.
|
**** the complexity of Birds Bop is beyond comprehension. ****
Not at all. It is quite comprehensible. If you are speaking metaphorically about it’s greatness, fine; otherwise, the fact that so many were able to copy his style shows just how comprehensible it is. The same way that many copied or were influenced by Hawkins’ style; although this was probably on an a lesser scale.
|
One of the most interesting stories in all of jazz lore and one which goes to the topic of the evolution of jazz styles has to do with Sonny Stitt. This verified story, however, flies in the face of some of what has been discussed here so far.
The issue of players’ influence on each other’s styles is well established. As pjw suggests there is a big difference between copying an influential player’s style “to a T” and using some of that influential player’s conceptual ideas to inform one’s own playing. The former type of player seldom becomes a major player. The latter type, players like Art Pepper, Phil Woods and Jackie McLean, took some of Bird’s conceptual ideas and added them to their own to create a Bird-influenced, but still personal sound. Bird himself was a big fan of and was very influenced by Jimmy Dorsey (!) and Lester Young. However, there is another force that comes into play in all this that is very interesting, imo.
Some here have at times asked the question “why does jazz have to evolve?” as a argument against the validity of contemporary players’ styles and “new jazz” in general. The answer is simply that it evolves because it has to. It is the nature of the beast. It has evolved from day one and will continue to do so. There is a certain logical inevitability to the evolution of jazz styles. Sonny Stitt is a perfect example:
The story as told by players who were there, players like Kenny Clark and Stitt himself, is that Bird and Stitt lived in different cities and had never had any contact. In fact, because Bird was still new on the scene, Stitt had not even heard recordings by Bird. Yet, when they first met they found that their respective styles were remarkably similar. This is all well documented for anyone who wants to read about it. Stitt had heard other influential players like Hawkins and these influences along with his own voice led him to a similar place as Bird. This is the reason why it is generally and inaccurately believed that Stitt emulated Bird. |
O-10, I’m glad that you thought is was valid. But, I’m at a bit of a loss as to how to respond to your post. Most importantly, the issue of evolution is not about “new jazz”, it’s a general idea that applies to any time period in the music and I really would prefer to not get into another debate about the merits of old vs new. I also don’t understand the “since it is you who is always pushing new jazz” comment. That’s not an accurate characterization at all. Some posters here have posted far more new jazz than I have. Moreover, as with my last “survey” 😉, I would say it’s new jazz maybe a quarter of the time for my posted clips. What I do advocate for, although I wouldn’t characterize it as “pushing”, is trying to be more genre-neutral. For me, new jazz does not have to be approached automatically with skepticism about its validity. Lastly, with respect, if after 5 years of this thread with its many posted clips of good “new jazz”, it has to be given a “best shot” once again so others can “decide” then it’s pretty clear to me that the exercise will be pointless.
Now, re the lack of responses to your “new jazz” posts. First, I think it’s an exaggeration to say that no one ever responds. But, speaking only for myself, I simply don’t like most of what you post as “new jazz”. I don’t feel that it is representative of the better, never mind best new jazz out there. I have posted a bit of what consider good “new jazz”; perhaps you didn’t like it. Again, even very recently some here posted very good examples. I will offer some thoughts on your last “new jazz” clip next time around, Regards.
Besides, pryso’s “challenge” has to get first dibs 😊 |
Great post, nsp.
Very nice clips, Alex; thanks. Funny, I made that comment once or twice a long time ago about some specific players and that comment has been quoted many times by one of our esteemed posters. As you know, I am not a fan of generalities and I hope the fact that I wasn’t particularly impressed with specific players does not deter you from posting lesser knowns. I certainly value lesser known players as part of the complete picture. A perfect example of the problem with generalities is your post on Herb Geller; I posted Herb Geller clips several months ago and like his playing very much as I have some others. How is Mary_Jo doing?
|
pryso, re your “challenge” and to use some of your examples: Bill Evans. Instead of “Waltz For Debby’ which, although deserving it, gained increased popularity from the relatively new wave of audiophile reissues, my choice for an introduction to Bill Evans would be “Everybody Digs Bill Evans”. A little less “moody” and itrospective than WFD with an overall more upbeat feeling and still with that beautiful suave sophistication. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRh9kGdYB9ICannonball Adderley. We discussed “Somethin’ Else” here quite a while ago mostly in comparison to KOB for overall merit. For me there is no contest with KOB being the most important of the two. O-10 and Rok disagreed, feeling that KOB was too much of an “audiophile darling” (?). However, I also argued that I felt that “Somethin’ Else” was really, more than anything, a Miles Davis date. Not to go there again, but for an introduction to Cannonball I would pick his album with a most fitting name, “Presenting Cannonball Adderley”; and not because of the title: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SN7ajvau50EMiles Davis and speaking of KOB. You’re right, it would be difficult to argue against KOB being the choice, but I’ll play Devil’s Advocate and suggest that a better choice for an introduction would be “Round About Midnight”. Miles’ overall scope of styles is huge and amazing as we know. KOB, with all its greatness is a record that clearly defines a dramatic move to a style (modal) that would help shape just about everything he did afterwards. In some ways what came before might get lost a bit to someone new to Miles.. I would pick the record that hints at the more modern style of KOB and beyond, but is still more obviously rooted in the pre-modal tradition. https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6FD0274FA2A10567Interesting topic. |
bluesy41, you’re right, Joey DeFrancesco is a bad man! Great clips all. Some of my favorite work of his is with the great Pat Martino; very complimentary approaches and they burn! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O15Xmzn6T1Y |
|
Something different. The little known band “Dreams” from the late 60s/early 70s was probably the most creative and interesting (to me) of the horn based bands that would become popular during that era. Before the terms Jazz-Rock or fusion were coined and before the Jazz left Jazz-Rock. Members included Billy Cobham, Will Lee, Jim. Abercrombie and the very young Brecker Brothers. Their first record would become a bit of a cult classic: https://youtu.be/hwb5AVade4Ahttps://youtu.be/R5JR8b7z2oshttps://youtu.be/fusZWH7Q4M0 |
|
Jim Abercrombie should read John Abercrombie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Gilman is the piano player. |
Great stuff! Great solos from two underrated horn players, Hardman and Maupin; especially Maupin with a really inventive and pretty “outside” solo. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mary_jo, enjoyed Kovaks; thanks. A new one to me. I would bet that there are a lot of Billie Holiday records in her collection. O-10, Baden Powell was the guitarist in the house band for a Brazilian tv show hosted by one of my very favorite singers, Elis Regina. I posted some beautiful Regina cuts recently. Beautiful player, Baden Powell; rhythm just kind of poured out of him in a very natural way. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1Bcxr-SoCeMhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6fmijaxtNDsAround 1975, I think. When was the last time we heard something this musically interesting on a regular television show? Great example of music with the spirit of Brazil (imo); very musically sophisticated country: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=STGVBotHMQY |
|
nsp, totally fair. They both do sound a lot like Miles. However, in the case of Henderson I feel he is bringing some of his own stuff to the table; the jazz is on a higher level. Many players sound a lot like Miles, or Coltrane, or Bird, and they still bring something unique to their own style. In the case of Wallace Roney, to my ears he is trying very hard to sound Iike Miles.and very little more. It takes a lot of balls to play Blue In Green almost exactly the way Miles played it. Problem is he is not nearly the player Miles was and his instrumental control, as in the intro on the live cut, is very rough. It leaves me the feeling of “what’s the point?”. He sounds ok on the more aggressive and faster tempos, but the slow intro to the tune sounds downright bad, imo. He’s learned a lot of Miles’ licks. His band’s playing, including the tenor player, is not on a particularly high level, imo.
|
|
|
mary_jo, I agree about Art Pepper. In fact, I sometimes find it difficult to listen to his playing. Not because I don’t like it, I love his playing, but because it is so emotional and even tortured sounding (like much of his life) that find it uncomfortable at times. No question that he played from the heart. |
Very nice clips, Alex; enjoyed those. Heard this on the radio this morning. Truth is, I usually don’t enjoy scat singing very much. For me, it is very rare the singer who can scat a solo which, when compared to a decent instrumental solo, can hold its own. So, I’m ususally left with the feeling of “why?”; or worse. There have been but a handful that could scat on the level of an instrumentalist. Check out Ella on this and her interplay with Paul Gonsalves. Astounding! https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLm6ezi_GWkMIwGbyJ2SL7m0QfeoJYUZb-&v=mRn5L4CRG_0Hard to believe, but even better: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=16mk4dKNcXE |
Glad you enjoyed those clips, nsp. They’re pretty great, as you say. That kind of vocal prowess is rare and your observations are right on. Another aspect of Ella’s scatting that separates her from most other sigers who try to scat is that, while some singers can handle fast tempos (sort of), Ella actually makes the (harmonic) changes! Most singers fake it and simply stay (mostly) in the key of the song, but Ella actually vocalized phrases that clearly outlined the changing harmonies of the tune; the way a good horn player would. Almost unheard of from most singers. Not many could keep up with this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mo1RS707yxo |
Thanks for the Mark Murphy clips, nsp. Great stuff! O-10 doesn’t remember, but some Mark Murphy clips were posted a while back when we discussed male singers. I like him very much. If I’m not mistaken I posted some clips from this record which features early Brecker brothers: https://youtu.be/SJLIdyjXrDARe Classical music: As pryso points out, simply because music uses an orchestra does not make the music “Classical” and the music in those clips is definitely not Classical. The term “Classical” music is typically used to describe a genre of “art music” distinguished from jazz, rock or other popular music; although much of what we now call Classical was, in fact, popular at one time. The genre covers a wide range of styles spanning several centuries. Adding to the confusion is the fact that the term is used generically when, in fact, Classical music is technically music composed during the Classical period (roughly 1750-1850) as opposed to, for instance, the Baroque or Romantic periods. The music can be symphonic, choral, chamber or opera. Additionally, the music adheres to certain compositional disciplines and traditions. As in jazz, the boundaries of these disciplines are always being challenged by composers searching for new sounds and ways of expression. This short description just scratches the surface of the tremendous depth of the compositional skill of the great “Classical” (generic) composers and the techniques that they use in their compositions. 0-10, I know you don’t like Classical music and I suspect you haven’t listened to much of it. I’m glad those clips helped you understand “how all the various musicians in a symphony contribute to the whole”. However, those clips are not very good examples of this for a variety of reasons, starting with the fact that most of the featured instruments are not orchestral instruments at all and not to mention that the “conductor”, while she may be attractive, is not a good conductor. There are far better examples on YouTube of how a symphony orchestra “works” if you are interested. There is a lot of amazing music in the genre; give it a listen. |
O-10, no one is calling you names and no one here would. I apologize if you found anything I wrote to be offensive. None of it was intended to be a personal attack and I would suggest you go over what you wrote to understand why it gave a certain impression.
re the conductor:
O-10, by your own admission you know very little about Classical music and don’t listen to it. Simple statement of fact and not a criticism at all; we don’t all like all genres of music. So, it follows that a person who doesn’t listen to Classical music would not be able to recognize a good conductor. Right? I would be glad to offer more details as to why that is not a very good conductor if you would like to learn a little more about what conducting an orchestra is all about. Otherwise, good tasting pudding or not, you’ll just have to take my word for it; or not. Regards. |
Rok, sure, they still exist. However, probably not quite as despotic and tyrannical as the infamous ones of the past. Among others, two reasons for this:
Orchestra players' committees probably have more clout today than in the past and the modern trend of the jet-setting conductor who is constantly travelling to conduct orchestras other than his own causes some distance to be kept from the players in the orchestra.....sometimes as well as musical connection.
The conductor is boss. Ultimately, it IS "his way or the highway". However, the smart conductor knows that the only way to get the very best playing from the orchestra is to return the respect. Being an ahole to the orchestra is always counterproductive. Being respectful and giving a compliment when making a musical demand of a player is usually a much more effective way of getting good results. Trust is important. Don't stop and waste time pointing out the first time someone makes a small mistake. The player knows it and 99% of the time it won't happen again. Guest conductors' biggest mistake.
Another infamous tyrant was Fritz Reiner. Famous Reiner story:
He would sometimes conduct with a very small beat pattern which can be hard to see. A trumpet player once took out binoculars to look up at the maestro. After a while, Reiner took out a small piece of paper. When the intrepid trumpet player again looked at Reiner through his binoculars he noticed writing on the piece of paper:. "You're fired".
|
|
Thanks for that. acman3. Good stuff, I particularly enjoyed Akinmusire’s playing. Excellent player with a very fiery attitude reminiscent of Freddie Hubbard’s. Nice to see the banner for the great WBGO in the back. Great way to start the morning before breakfast. I think it’s oatmeal for me today (with a little brown sugar and cranberries!) 😊: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z2wLpRw-FQ |
Glad you enjoyed that, pryso. One of the greatest modern orchestral works and the LSC with Chicago/Fritz Reiner is an audiophile fave (the clip was Berlin/Pierre Boulez). mary_jo, great! The real-life Betty Boop: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zw1rgcgW7Yw |
I agree about Peggy Lee. Truth is I am not particularly fond of Peters’ singing, but her Betty Boop persona is great.
|
0-10, I agree about Wardell Gray’s ballad playing. Beautiful player who like Coleman Hawkins was a transitional player who bridged swing and bebop. To my ears he sounded pretty credible in a bebop setting, but he was still mostly rooted in the swing tradition and sounded most at home there. Shades of Lester Young. You may like this: https://youtu.be/d4l2KDVMjXU |
..... if one likes that sort of thing. Bernadette Peters is a musical theater diva who has cultivated that “Betty Boop” persona. The clip was not meant as a good example of “Fever”, but as a follow up to mary_jo’s very cute clip. One does have to admire a woman who still looks like that today at 70 (!). |
Yes, welcome supertweak! Great record, “Mysterious Traveller”. I like and agree with your descriptions of the record and the playing on it. **** Do not forget perhaps the most creatively unique jazz album of all time **** Pretty bold statement and while I would agree it is definitely one of the most creatively unique, I’m not sure I, personally, would say “the most of all time”. Like other uniquely creative albums their uniqueness has everything to do with the time period. I prefer a broader context. You mention Wayne Shorter, one of my very favorite jazz musicians and highly underrated as a composer as far as I am concerned. So much of his concept as a composer has shaped contemporary jazz. As a player, as you point out, I have found it fascinating how his playing has gotten more and more concise; say the most with fewer and fewer notes. Great composer: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3XvJFW0DHbUhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fvRkGglLe-Uhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z3qXILIfPuw |
I should have written “under appreciated” instead of “underrated” composer (Wayne Shorter”) |
pryso, your musical knowledge is certainly not an issue, imo. Even more importantly, your musical instincts are excellent, imo. Having said that, I hope you are not suggesting that you consider all WR albums prior to MT to be on the same level of creativity; that would suggest that you don’t have a favorite. You are correct that this sort of question seldom has a definitive answer and is subject to personal taste. Are there any WR albums that you consider to be exceptional?
All those concerns aside, however, I would say that for whatever it may be worth MT is generally cited as, if not always the best, certainly one of the best WR albums. For me it makes a clear move to a more structured (and, for me, interesting) compositional approach (the tunes are better) as opposed to the more liberal use of vamps for extended improvisations in earlier records. This combined with the fact that this was the record that, as supertweak suggested, began Zawinal’s more prominent role in the band. Great band whose music and playing, to be honest, I admired more than I liked. Then, of course, is the fact that this was the last album before Jaco came aboard. This changed the sound of the band in a big way. So, best (whatever that is) or not, I think it is certainly a milestone of sorts.
|
|
|
