Great WR clips, acman and pryso; thanks. Really good to revisit this group’s records after a surprisingly long time (for me) not spinning them. As I pointed out before, while I have always enjoyed their records they were never favorites and I am finding that my reaction to them is even more positive now. Good post, nsp; and good observations re WR. I would only add that while Wayne Shorter does seem to take more of a back seat to Zawinal beginning with Mysterious Traveller, my hunch is that there is more “Wayne Shorter” in the post-MT mix than may seem obvious. For me one of the most insteresting things about Shorter’s career is how his playing became more and more economical as time passed; as if he were on a mission to say the most with the least number of notes. As you point out he used space in his solos very well; one single well placed and shaped note from him can be so expressive and say so much. Consummate artist that he is, I suspect that taking more of back seat to Zawinal was itself an artistic statement on his part and not the result of any “political” issue. Miles with Wayne: my favorite jazz band of all time. Amazing Quintet with an amazing amount of musical synergy. For me, it just doesn’t get “better” than this as concerns level of musical interaction and intuition in jazz regardless of style. Tony Williams!!! One of Shorter’s more unique recordings: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VFPIB4rFPIAhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fijliIceqJ4https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8DTTx_hb_Gs |
|
|
No defect. That is called flutter tonguing and is used for musical effect; can be done on any wind instrument. Imagine saying the word “Arriba!” and rolling the r’s, not in the stereotyoical way an Anglo might, but the way a native would. The player does the same thing with the toungue while blowing into the horn. Fantastic Henderson clips; all classics. Thanks for those, Alex and ghosthouse. Amazing player and one of the giants; up there with Rollins and Trane, imo. Love that beautiful blend of funkiness with control and harmonic inventiveness. One of my favorite tenor tones. This record is Henderson at the very peak of his creative and inventive genius, imo. Warning: bass solos and no piano 😎: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gvksR_tcAKkI posted this previously. One of my very favorite jazz records: https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMD9X0rJLX6bVX8SIMSmPlVv_PAFx3v85 |
So glad to see Joe Henderson lots of love here. Beautiful player! As I think about it, there are probably less than half a dozen players who hasn’t recorded as solo record I did not like; he is definitely one of them. For me, one of the things that I love about him and which makes him unique is that he played with a very modern and advanced harmonic vocabulary, but played it with a tone that did not come from the hard-edged and bright Coltrane sound approach. I can’t think of many like that even today. Joe Lovano is one. pryso asked: **** what is the most unusual instrument featured in a jazz recording? **** Celeste? Bagpipes? Harpsichord? Puleeease!!!! That’s unusual?😄. How’s this for unusual? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-75nlrqEjWAGiven the examples previously given, some might question whether this can be called “jazz”. This is definitely jazz in my book. Moreover, I think that a record that dedicates a tune to Cannonball Adderly (“Cannon”) by a musician who Miles once said was his biggest influence could probably pretty safely be called jazz...if one cares. The term “genius” is probably used way too loosely. Hermeto Pascoal was an amazing musical genius. Composer, bandleader and multi-strumentalist on guitars, keys, flutes, saxophones, brass and just about anything that he could get a hold of, he was the idol of the wave of great Brazilian artists who worked with prominent American jazz artists during the 70’s and 80’s (Airto, Flora Purim, Milton Nascimento, Elis Regina, David Amaro). Incredible musician. Way out there at times, but amazing. This record is quite a ride; by one of the most interesting and unusual musicians ever. Think “Herbie Mann goes for a hike with Frank Zappa in the Brazilian jungle”: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2ptOJ33u1bQ |
A pig’s squeal is centered roughly around 4,000 HZ (for real; love the internet) Hmmmm!......I think it may be time for new tubes in your line stage 😉. Seriously, like acman3 said, listen again; at least for the 60 seconds. It’s worth it. Try it again: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-75nlrqEjWA**** "How do you come up with something like that?" **** Who knows? However, one has to understand the culture to get it. And I think part of the answer may be found in why Miles said what he said about Hermeto and what we know about Miles. IOW, a no boundaries, “sky’s the limit” approach to the creative process. There are, in fact, some people on this planet that hear music, or the potential for music, in just about any and every sound and thing imaginable; and have an extremely uncompromising attitude about this idea and their art in general. Hermeto is one of the few that can also back up their way-out-there notions with extreme ability and skill in the conventional. Btw, I went to an Hermeto concert back in the 80’s here in NYC. I heard some of the most unbelievably virtuosic and intricate compositions for a “jazz” band imaginable. Right off the bat one could tell that Hermeto was annoyed that there were some in the audience who weren’t listening and were there just to socialize. Half way through the third tune he waved the band out and they walked off the stage. I didn’t blame them. For anyone interested in learning about this very unusual musician: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9hb_Q3VCViI |
|
|
“kill” = skill; of course. |
Fantastic article, pryso; thanks for that. I love Dexter Gordon’s playing. He was my first favorite tenor player. The article does a great job of explaining his importance. I heard him live at the Village Vanguard a few times back in the 80’s when he made his big comeback and return from Europe. Like some of Art Pepper’s late recordings I find his playing toward the end of his career to be almost painful to listen to. The ravages of practically lifelong drug and alcohol abuse. I remember the last time I heard him that he sounded like he looked and acted...bombed. The huge sound and soulfulness was there (mostly), but playing so behind the rhythm that it was uncomfortable. It was kind of sad because it was so obvious that the man had a major problem. The “Body And Soul” movie clip is a good example of this. In his prime, he was amazing: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tzcl454jdhI&t=0s&index=2&list=PLF2E1AC12D0827B26Here’s a “Body And Soul” from the same period (1962): https://m.youtube.com/watch |
Schubert, glad you enjoyed that J Henderson recording. I agree, as good as it gets. Top NY guys. It’s an interesting thing how, just as we speak of the differences between East Coast vs West Coast players as soloists, those differences give the ensemble playing a certain flavor and attitude. Wonderful arrangements. Very intelligent and informed by the techniques of modern Classical composers; and they swing! You may find the notes in the CD insert interesting: http://jazzprofiles.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-joe-henderson-big-band.html |
nsp, I agree about Dexter’s distinctive style; he has always been a favorite. He has always been known for having a very relaxed and “on the backside of the beat” style. What I referred to previously was what happened toward the end of his career when the effects of all the years of drug use seemed to take over. The same way that any person’s unique idiosyncharsies (not just musical) are often magnified by drug and acohol abuse, Dexter’s musical idiosynchrasies were magnified to the extent that he would seem to be playing to an entirely different beat than the rhythm section; far from “slightly”. Still, one of the greats.
In answer to your question, Dexter’s main influences were Lester Young, Gene Ammons and Marshall Royal who was lead alto in the saxophone section of Lionel Hampton’s band that Dexter spent a lot of time with. As an influence himself, Dexter’s most notable was John Coltrane. A lot of similarities in their big wide open tone with edge which was a big departure from the softer edged tone of the swing tenor players. |
Nice article, acman3. Thanks. And great clip! Dexter was also known for being a prolific “quoter” of other tunes in his solos sometimes for humorous effect. I counted at least four in his solo in that clip including his often quoted “Mona Lisa” and “Here Comes The Bride”. I hear the Lockjaw connection.
Great clip, Alex.
|
|
O-10, hope you are doing ok. Please let us know how you’re doing.
|
**** Where is the BRAZILIAN part? ****
Are you serious? I can’t believe I have to point this out to the truest of true Aficionados. Not! Well, for starters it’s a classic bossa nova rhythm. You know, bossa nova... Brazil. Geez!
100% accurate? Yeah, sure.
It’s ok, Rok, I know you’re holding a grudge. This too shall pass. Besides, no thread to thread grudge holding allowed. Aficionado handbook: pg. 3, Rule no. 1 😊 |
I too am very excited about hearing this new record. I understand why there may be some skepticism about the importance of this recording. However, I have a different take; hence my excitement. Much of my thinking is based on conjecture, but.......
I cannot believe that ANY recording by Trane with THAT quartet can possibly be second rate. The one clip that I have heard is anything but second rate. Every reference that I have read mentions that the master tape was “lost”, and all the commentary by musicians who have heard it in its entirely are positive. I believe that it is entirely possible that the master tape was lost for the following reasons that a little sleuthing (I love this stuff) suggest might be possible:
- From 1962 to 1964 Trane recorded 14 (!) records; all but two as a leader. A lot of records.
- From 1962 to 1964 “Impulse” Records released 133 (!!!!) recordings.
- Yes, Trane had a copy of the master tape. However, it was not in his possession; he had given it to his wife. Importantly, and I think this may be the key, the record was made in 1963...the same year that he and his wife separated. He moved out and moved in with Alice before he and Naima were divorced. Anyone who has been in a similar situation knows how chaotic it can be. To me, it’s completely plausible that a record label (and artist) could “lose” a recording.
Looking forward to hearing it; the proof is in the listening.
|
First, Happy Father’s Day to any jazz loving Dads out there! pryso, sometimes we forget that great artists are people too just like all of us and are subject to forgetfulness and other similar issues just as we all are. I would be willing to bet that this “lost” Trane recording is not the only one out there that has been forgotten about. Musicians would often (and still do) go into the studio and lay down tracks that would eventually find their way onto record releases without prior concrete plans to do so; or would go into the studio to rehearse and the engineer would simply roll the tape. No big money to be sure, but those guys were very busy; not just recording, but with tours and other live performances. The truth is that most (not all) jazz artists were notorious for being disorganized with their business dealings. Re my comments re the record label: Impulse was a relatively small record label with very limited resources. The more records they released, the more that their limited resources were taxed and the more likely that a tape might be lost. Much more unlikely that, as with a label like Columbia, would they have an archivist on staff. So.... You may find this of interest: http://www.billholland.net/words/Labels%20Strive%20to%20Rectify%20Past%20Archival%20Problems.pdf |
|
|
|
O-10, I am glad you are back and still with us. As you may have noticed I have expressed genuine concern for your health on several occasions. I am truly happy to see your post as I and others here were genuinely concerned.
Now, having said that, I must also say that I am disappointed that you still feel the need to make unnecessary judgments and characterizations about what music may mean to someone other than yourself. Very presumptuous of you and quite off the mark. “....just a statement of fact”? Hardly. To be blunt, O-10, don’t think you know what you’re talking about. I hope I don’t have to explain why someone might find such unnecessarily personalized characterizations to be offensive. As always, hoping for healthier dialogue.
A sincere welcome back! |
On a 14 hr plane trip today so have a lot of time to write, but don’t know when or if this will go out.
I suppose that for reasons that should be obvious the more generous thing to do would be to ignore the judgmental and insensitive comments and characterizations of a personal nature. Comments that are not only unwarranted and totally off the mark, but that for reasons that should also be obvious (under the circumstances) are a window into the true character of those making them. And let’s not even get into the convoluted double talk. Why some here feel the need to stoop to making insensitive personal judgments about musical tastes is obvious... in the absence of substance of one’s own...diminish the other guy’s contribution. Sad. I see no purpose in participating here if I don’t remain consistent in the idea that BS re the subject of music should be pointed out. To be clear, I wouldn’t have an issue with this type of self-delusion if it weren’t accompanied by the unnecessary personal insinuations. In the absence of something really interesting to say, make some claim to some ephemeral ability to “perceive”. Give me a break. I guess I’m not feeling very generous; must be the airplane food 😝
**** we don’t listen to jazz (meaning you and I) we perceive it. By that, I mean all the generations of musicians that went into it, before the one we’re listening to, and I know Frogman can not understand that ****
What a bunch of cr@p! This from someone with a very limited scope of this music and who by his own admission was never interested in any music before Charlie Parker; nor much after hard-bop. And how ironic that it has been I who has for the longest time promoted
the importance of a historical perspective as a way to better appreciate one’s favorite time periods in the music and to appreciate other styles as well. “Perceive”? Right .......
Of course being able to “perceive” jazz must be the reason that O-10 has posted so much lame music. Not all of course, but enough disco and bizarre jungle music to make one cringe.
**** the main reason I don’t have much Louis Armstrong is because I considered him more of an entertainer than a musician, ****
What is amazing about this comment is the casualness with which it is made while being oblivious to the implications; especially since it’s author claims to be very knowledgeable about jazz. An “aficionado”, you know. Like someone professing to be a climatologist while still not knowing that the earth is round.
**** Things haven’t been the same since you left ****
True. There have been a lot of unacknowledged expressions of concern for O-10 and his health since he left. Two additional observations: None of the expressions of concern were by the author of the above quoted observation. And guess what else was different until that same author (or reference to him) returned? There was not one iota of negativity nor bickering here.
Now, back to what really matters:
**** Question for anyone: Did Ellington know before hand, what Gonsalves would blow, during his ’interval’ at Newport? ****
Not exactly. No way does this question have a simple yes/no answer; music is far more nuanced than that. A musical giant and band leader like Duke Ellington, possessing such a highly developed musical acumen and knowing his sidemen as intimately as he did, might have a pretty good idea of how a player might shape a solo; or, that he would build it around a specific musical fragment (short melody). Oh, sorry....there’s that intellectual stuff again. Let’s see....let me try “perceiving” instead.......................trying.............................nope..............not working for me.
So, while Duke may not have known exactly what, nor all that Gonsalves would play there would probably be times during the solo that Duke would know where he
was going. Perhaps even exactly where he was going.
Players sometimes go through phases on a short or long term basis while exploring certain musical ideas A player might go through a phase when he might like to play specific note choices over certain chords. Like a chef, for instance, might go through a phase when he likes to use a lot of cinnamon. And this is just one example in the domain of harmony. There are just as many possibilities (or more) in the domain of rhythm. Paul Gonsalves had a pretty advanced harmonic concept especially for a player rooted primarily in the swing tradition. One of his favorite solo techniques was taking a short musical fragment and transposing it into different keys as the chord progression of the tune demanded. That fact alone would give Duke a pretty good idea of what Golsalves might play at any given point in a solo.
Think of it this way. What is soloing at its most basic? Improvised musical expression. Think about the writing or speaking styles of someone you know extremely well. Often, one knows what that person is going to say; and, certainly in the middle of a comment, where that person might be going.
Hope that wasn’t too much intellect(ual) for you. You asked.
Now, to my way of thinking it should be obvious by now that the reason I bother making these comments is not that I care particularly about what O-10 or Rok think about my musical tastes. What I do care about is the way that a certain mistaken idea continues to be promulgated that, while fine (if extremely limiting) for anyone individual, is used as a way to build up one’s own experience at the expense and judgment of another’s experience. The idea that knowledge, or having an intellectual ELEMENT as part of one’s listening experience will somehow and necessarily impede the appreciation of the emotional component in music is utter nonsense. This aversion to this aspect of the listening experience is a personal choice and may or may not be a product of one’s personality or may be simple intellectual laziness. I won’t judge the validity of anyone’s approach to the listening experience, and I expect the same.
Best wishes with your treatment, O-10.
And, btw, you’re welcome.
Sent from my iPhone
|
I have chubby fingers too, pjw; maybe it helps that what I do professionally requires a lot of finger dexterity. Those trips to Asia are a little tough, but back on the ground now.
I completely agree with your comments. Not only should we feel free to express dislike of any music posted in a respectful manner, but its even better if specific details can be given for the reasons why. And that has, unfortunately, been the cause of a lot of unnecessary defensiveness and bickering here. For instance, if someone dislikes the music simply because the playing is sub-par and gives details why, the fact that the technical details can be provided are automatically equated by some with the inability to “feel the emotion” of the music. The person who can describe the technical elements or technical flaws is thought to be incapable of feeling the emotion (perceiving”?); ever. What a bunch of nonsense and copout. Sheer intellectual laziness and so unfortunate since it is just the opposite.
|
One more fourteen hour flight on my way back from China and with dicey WiFi. Spending a Fourth of July in that country, as interesting as it is, made the fact that posting on sites like Audiogon is blocked by their government particularly meaningful. So, catching up on the posts of the last few days; good way to pass the time. First, thanks all for all the great clips. Rok, **** Did Ellington know before hand, what Gonsalves would blow, during his ’interval’ at Newport? **** Later: **** Since this was such an important moment for the Ellington Band, I just wondered if The Duke knew it was coming. **** Two completely different questions, no? I already explained why Duke might know some of what Gonsalves would blow because I don’t think a simple “yes” would have been very meaningful. That nuts and bolts thing is the only way to explain why Duke might know. In answer to your second question: Of course he would have known it was coming. Solo orders or who is going to be featured is always preplanned; especially for recordings. That chart was Gonsalves’ feature and Duke always introduced it as such. **** This music was first played in the whore houses of New Orleans. So, to which "Technical elements" or "Technical flaws" are you referring? **** I’m sure there was both good and bad playing at places like Ruby’s. I find that sometimes bad playing (or singing) gets a free pass because the music fits into a certain style or time period that the particular listener happens to like a lot. Imo, there are too many examples of great music with playing that is without significant technical flaws to bother with the flawed. “There’s usually a reason why...”. But, that’s just me. **** The ’putdown’ that Pops was ’just an entertainer’ was started by the so-called ’angry’ progressive/noise makers from the NYC Jazz crowd. **** I don’t think so. This was a notion held by people with limited knowledge about the music and its history; and how it evolved. They would see Pops on television and that is pretty much the extent of the association. This misconception began well before there were any what you consider “noisemakers”. The significance of Louis Armstrong in jazz has always been understood by anyone who has more than very casual appreciation of it and its history; and his place in it is just as significant as things like the fact that Bird and Diz “invented” bebop. Alex, I saw Johnny Griffin twice at the Village Vanguard back in the late ‘80s. His playing was fantastic, but I can’t really say that it was “better” than what I hear in his recordings. You ask some interesting questions. **** Does the lack of interaction with ’public’ and life itself on more intimate and every day level makes the todays jazz different than one from before? **** While I am not sure I would characterize it as “lack of interaction”, the answer has to be “of course”. Art is always a reflection of the times; this has been discussed before, However, that is not what determines its ultimate quality. Any one listener may not like what the music is saying (reflecting), but it may still be great music; and that same listener may or may not appreciate that fact. **** Is it possible for an art form to grow without such relation and does that makes jazz ’dead’ except as an form of expression of people who are practicing it ? **** Jazz is growing. Again, one may not like it, but it’s growing alright. And contrary to a recent mistaken assertion it is growing in the US probably more than anywhere else. As it should be; it’s its birthplace. **** But, their form of expression is very different Is it possible to apply the same analogy to jazz, because except for the same instrumets and similar conception in performance, we are looking/hearing at two very different types of music, but we are calling them by the same name? **** Much of Coltrane’s music is every bit as, or more, “different” from the music of Louis Armstrong or even Charlie Parker. Are they not both “Jazz”? Thanks for the link to the book; I will check it out. As far as some of the other notable posts go, I was reminded recently by someone very wise of this great George Bernard Shaw quote: ”I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it. ...” —————————————— One of my favorite tenor sounds; and one of the all-time greatest story tellers. He kills me every time with the way he builds a solo like a great story: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GLP9osh3Z1g&list=PLE1SK0O9FkE6WskguWMTWEFvrz0UZiJOU&index=2 |
pjw, thanks for the focus on Hiromi. I had heard a couple of things by her in the past and for no particular reason I didn’t follow up Very impressive very high energy playing. A melting pot of many styles and piano playing with the technical precision of a player with a strong Classical background. Pretty impressive stuff: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oOCniYVLlXs |
**** The difference in time was approx. 17 minutes!! Is that possible? Or is this a result of repeats taken or not taken? **** Sure it’s possible. Much controversy around what the “correct” tempos for Beethoven’s works should be. In recent times his symphonies have seldom been performed using Beethoven’s metronome markings in the score which would result in much faster performances. They are usually performed much slower than marked and Bohm’s recordings of the 9th are known for being some of the slowest. I have Bohm’s recording with Vienna, but I don’t know the Gardiner. It’s possible that Gardiner made an effort to, as some “purists” insist on doing, stick to Beethoven’s markings. This would result in a performance under one hour in duration vs many others which are in the 70+ min range.
An interesting factoid that you may not be aware of: the possible total length of a CD was determined by Sony execs to be 74 mins in order for a single cd to accommodate the 9th in its entirety. At the time, the slowest known recorded performance was with Furtwangler conducting which clocks in at.......74 mins.
|
“There are two kinds of music; good music and the other kind” - Duke Ellington (maybe) 😎. Ben Webster? Without a doubt; although Hamilton sounds a little bit more modern. Similar feel and similar breathy tone and way of starting each note. As jazz tenor sound evolved it would have a little less air in the tone, and vibrato that is not as exaggerated; but it also lost that hard to describe singing quality in the high register. Webster had a distinctive quality in the way he would slide into a note; almost like putting a little smile on it. Broadly speaking, I hear Hamilton’s tone as being a decade or two in the direction of what most today would call a “modern” tenor sound and I would bet he also listened to players like Al Cohn and Zoot Sims. Nice clips. I like Scott Hamilton a lot; very classy and swinging player. There are very few tenor players paying like that today. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u_GfWfgytLI |
pryso, your instincts are correct. I just listened to Alex’s “Goodbye Pork Pie Hat” clip. No way that’s John Handy. John Handy was a very good player, but with a style from a different era. This player is a much more contemporary player with a definite post-Coltrane style. I’m tempted to say it’s Alex Foster who often plays with the current Mingus big band run by Sue Mingus, but I don’t think so. Foster doesn’t have as much of a Brecker influence as this player has.
Great Webster/Mulligan clip. One of my favorite Billy Strayhorn tunes. Thanks.
|
|
|
Glad you enjoyed Duke’s sacred concert music. He wrote three Sacred Concerts toward the end of his career. The music is seldom performed due to the number of performers required. He considered the music for these “the most important music I ever composed”. A side of Duke that is not heard often enough. That Benson record has been one of my “guilty pleasure” records since I bought the lp years ago. An example of when very slick and somewhat heavy handed production values actually work well musically...up to a point. And for audiophile kicks, the sound is great. All star producers and technical folk as well as players. From the same time period and even more to the pop side things: https://youtu.be/vs9NpxTPBy0https://youtu.be/-0buxo4VBFs |
**** Scott Hamilton was probably influenced by Cohn also more so from the phrasing aspect than the tone.****
Exactly. Excellent observation.
|
Nice clips, nsp. Two alto players deserving of more attention here. Frank Strozier is one of the unsung heros of the alto saxophone with an interesting personal story. I first heard him years ago on this record (gotta love YouTube; I was surprised that this has been posted). Check out Strozier’s solo!!! (The tenor solo is by none other than Tom Scott who I love in a fusion/pop setting with his very unusual (weird) tenor sound; but less so in a jazz setting like this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N1SAr15umLsI did a double take (no pun) with that Jon Gordon Quartet “What’s New”. After the first couple of notes I thought: “that’s Phil Woods! Well, a little sleuthing showed that it is! Both Gordon and Phil Woods play on that. They trade off on the melody and solos. Gordon is an excellent player and clearly shows the influence of his idol Woods. Thanks for that. |
|
Classic! Truly great series from one of the greatest musical minds. This year would have been Bernstein’s 100th birthday. Thanks for the heads up. |
My sentiments exactly. I love Dr. John, but that “It Don’t Mean...” sounds like a parody of the tune. Curious choice to do a tune about swinging with a straight up and down beat. And, too S....L....O.....W! This is not meant as a criticism of Brubeck’s music in any way. I like Brubeck’s music a lot (in great part for the usual presence of Paul Desmond) and appreciate his legacy; but, in many ways this piano playing style strikes me as the antithesis of Brubeck’s: https://youtu.be/QO53Xu6TZBg |
Pryso, I agree with every word you wrote. A different style does not have to mean lacking emotion or “soul”. I hope my comparison of Brubeck’s piano style to Dr. John’s did not imply that. I also agree with your comment about why the bias against Brubeck may exist. As you point out, Brubeck was an extraordinarily well rounded musician with training and vast experience in several musical disciplines. Interestingly, the bias against that kind of background has been demonstrated here quite regualrly. Glad to see that, at least for some, that attitude is changing. Still, as always, the contradictions abound. Personally, I don’t believe that for music to have “soul” it has to be drenched in “blue notes” or have a certain feel. Soul is an expression of......what else?.....one’s soul; and one’s musical soul is determined by one’s background and life experience no matter the ethnic history. The black experience is not the only one that has “soul”. Try telling a great Japanese shakuhachi player that he has no soul; or a great Russian orchestra that they don’t play with soul. As far as what it takes to qualify for being called “jazz”? Well, no point in going there for the 100th time. So limiting. And to what end? Is it good music or not...that’s all. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/uncommon-time-dave-brubeck/ |
**** Surprise, Surprise!! ****
Surely, you can do better than that. How about something just a wee bit more insightful?
Now, Brubeck part of the cultural war? Seriously? Kindly explain.
Re “soul”:
That’s the problem with labels. First of all, the term “soul” was first used to define a specific popular music genre and was not typically used in connection with jazz until the sub genre “soul jazz” came to be.
One can’t have it both ways (there’s those contradictions again). If “soul” in jazz “has a special and very specific meaning. It carries with it the suffering of African Americans throughout a history of suffering” only, then I guess Dave Brubeck’s jazz has no soul. Imagine that, a jazz piano player who is claimed to be “a giant among giants” who has no soul in his playing! How does that work?
|
O-10, don’t you think it’s high time that you stop the ridiculous and obviously very selective personal attacks and simply address the disagreement and have a dialogue? Just who is it that is “sowing discord”? Once again, when the inconsistency is pointed out, or there is simple disagreement, resort to personal attacks. Seems to me that a good and logical retort or clarification would be much more productive. No? Perhaps next time I should try something like this instead to make sure I don’t sow discord; you seem to prefer this kind of response when there is disagreement:
“Are you on the juice again? What a load of BS”
Nah, it’s not in me.
Btw, I agree that acman3’s links are very good. Funny thing is, they support what I wrote. As always, hoping for civil and adult discussion. Regards.
Great MJ clip, btw. The chart has Q’s stamp all over; very nice. Thanks. |
|
|
Rok, how about addressing the specific question instead of condescending lectures. Let’s see, you won’t take what Mingus has to say seriously, but we are to take your judgmental lectures seriously. Is that it? Now, let’s focus; shall we?
You stated that Brubeck was part of the ”culture war”. You choose to call it a “war”. That’s fine, and I and all here, I’m sure, are well aware of the cultural changes (negative and positive) that have been taking place. Additionally, don’t be so quick to suggest you are the only one that understands history. The relationship between iazz and race is well understood by anyone that cares about this music, as is its huge positive impact on race relations; one of the most prominent and important topics discussed in “music school propaganda”, btw. Check your arrogance at the door, please; you just might learn something yourself. Back to Brubeck:
Again, how exactly is Brubeck part of this “culturel war”? How is someone who was so admired and who brought so much to the music a negative force in all this? Your comments seem to connect the subject of race to Brubeck’s influence in the scheme of things. How was a musician who was such a staunch advocate of race equality and so admired by other musicians and listeners of all races a negative influence in all this?
Please, don’t cop out with “you don’t understand this or that”. Specifics, please.
|
**** Dave's music and soul are incongruous. Why does Frogman continue to connect the two? **** Well, I could take exception with the use of “continue”, but let’s get to the meat of it instead. And I hope my response serves as an example of a reasoned attempt at dialogue instead of absurd and nonsensical personal attacks, name calling and accusations of trolling. **** when referring to soul as in jazz, it has a special and very specific meaning. It carries with it the suffering of African Americans throughout a history of suffering brought on by the discrimination of the American system. **** First, to suggest that being able to play with “soul” is the sole 😎 province of black musicians strikes me as not only inaccurate, but downright racist. I am sure you are not that, O-10; but, the implication is there. **** “Soul" is that imperceptible something in jazz that you know it when you hear it, and there is nothing else like it; Soul can not be duplicated or imitated, some got it, and some ain’t got it **** I agree with that comment. However, “playing with soul” is simply playing with emotion and feeling. That is how musicians use the term and how many listeners think of it. One does not have to be black to play with emotion (soul). As nsp points out, I think even Miles would agree. To use another of his examples: Bill Evans doesn’t play with soul?! One of the most deeply soulful piano players ever. Brubeck played jazz; I think we can agree on that. The idea that in the jazz world the playing of a “giant among giants” is “incongruous” with emotion (soul), struck me as the epitome of incongruousness; hence my question: “How does that work?” Is this trolling? Really? I hope that answered your question. https://youtu.be/nP1jkdz2lKw |
**** Is this Victor Goines? ****
Sounds like Victor. Looks like a young(er) Victor Goines..... PROFESSOR Victor Goines (Nothwestern U Music school). One of those....you know.....propagandists in music schools. |
|
**** My, my, how the mighty have fallen ****
You once wrote those very words about Wayne Shorter. If I cared, I might say “Thanks, not too shabby”. Still a pro, btw, and more so than ever. Every other label is your doing. Once again, in the absence of a meaningful comeback, resort to sarcasm or personal attacks. Still waiting for those specifics re Brubeck/“culture war”.
|
**** Talk about the sax playing on this tune. ****
Your link came through as “not available”, but both the 1956 and 1957 recordings have plenty of links available and I’m sure what you posted is one of those two. It’s one of my favorite Ellington/Johnny Hodges features (“Come a Sunday” from Black, Brown and Beige is still the greatest, imo; with “Blood Count” a close second).
What you are reacting to is the art of section playing and Duke’s saxophone section did it better than just about any other big band saxophone section. It is truly an art. Not only were Duke’s saxophone players great soloists, but they were also great section players who knew how to blend, match vibratos and, very importantly, recognize when they had to play to serve the orchestration and not their individual egos. They saved that for their solo outings within the orchestration or solo projects. Now, an important issue in all thisrelates to something that has been discussed here (tried to, anyway): the evolution of jazz. We have discussed the evolution of styles, but not so much the specific component of style as demonstrated by the tone of players; and not just saxophone players. Alex is very keyed in to that specific aspect of playing styles. As jazz in general evolved and individual styles evolved, generally speaking, players’ tone concepts would become more aggressive, brighter and louder. Even when playing softly; what I like to call the sound of a quiet scream. A “modern” sound doesn’t lend itself to that kind of homogenous blending as does the tone that players from Duke’s era generally played with. A kind of tone which, believe it or not, is a lot closer to what is considered an appropriate tone for Classical music than most modern sounds.
**** To me it seems to be a very difficult piece to play. They way they, both the soloist and sax section, are able to maintain their tone while slow and low. ****
Its a good observation. It really is not a difficult piece to play at all in the technical sense; and “maintaining the tone while low and slow” is a technical skill. What is difficult (very), and why it’s called the “art” of, are the aesthetic difficulties which have more to do with what may seem to some to be almost anti the spirit of jazz; total freedom and self expression. However, that is a very incomplete and unsophisticated view of what jazz playing is about in its totality; even solo playing. The fact that great players can be a piece of the whole while adding just enough (!) of their own musical presence to the whole, and all the while following the lead of the section leader (Hodges), is very difficult. How section players, the leader of each section, and each individual section as a whole approaches the composition’s orchestration is key to how successful the music will be and how good the listeners’s perception and reaction to the music will be. Good players will tell you that executing these challenges are in many ways just as musically satisfying as playing solo. There is little correlation between a player being a good or a bad section players and being a good soloist. Some do both very well and some are terrible section players. Duke’s band had players that were great at both.
Now, and as always, in the spirit of striving for better dialogues, I have to point out that I find a certain irony (and this is, by far, the kindest word that I might use) in the idea that you can frequently put down what is achievable in music education (which is what allows explanation of these things in a way that makes sense) and often in a personal way, and then also frequently ask for answers and explanations of these things. As I have pointed out many times before, understanding the technical can help understand the aesthetic more deeply. Musical likes and dislikes is an entirely different issue. And, yes, we know about Ruby’s 😊
On a related note:
I agree about the Tito/SheilaE clip; a lot of showmanship and not a whole lot of music. I almost agree with your comment about Tito’s “Take Five”. I agree with O-10 that the chart has a lot of “pep in its step” and I kind of like it. However, I don’t understand the comparison to Brubeck’s music, nor why the comparison is relevant. What I mean is that the only thing that it has in common with Brubeck is that they used the same melody (actually, Paul Desmond’s composition). However, they play it in a completely different style (Salsa); so, apples and oranges. Even more importantly, they removed the most important aspect of the tune, the fact that the tune is in 5, or five beats to the measure. They do “Take Five” ...IN FOUR! This gives it a completely different feel. One could say that the feel of the Brubeck’s “Take Five” is that of a great steady walk with a skip after every four steps and Tito’s is a just a steady walk with more swagger and the waistline way too low; if you know what I mean.
|
Fabulous Nina Simone. Loved the first three cuts. I don’t think Ellington is quite the repertoire for her. I seem to recall a comment about Jazz and Bach and how “the twain shall never meet”. I don’t agree. A huge challenge for an artist and most attempts don’t work, but it is possible. You posted about the best example of a great meeting that I’ve ever heard: https://youtu.be/uId47pfkAaE |
|
