Jazz for aficionados

Thank you, Schubert!

This is great!

http://www.jerryjazzmusician.com/2004/01/great-encounters-1-when-charlie-parker-played-for-igor-stravinsky/

****You get the impression this is BeBop being born or at least weaned. ****

That's exactly what it was. Beautiful player and a great example for understanding the evolution of the harmonic language of jazz improvisation. Navarro was a kind of link between the swing players and the bebop players that he influenced (Clifford Brown), who would later play in an even more harmonically sophisticated style. It's particularly clear when one compares some of the sidemen playing along side Navarro. Many of these swing players were still locked into a harmonic concept which stayed very close to the basic building blocks of each chord. One can hear how Navarro was more adventurous by comparison and strayed farther away from those basics, but still relatively "inside" the harmony. Later, more modern players like Brown would go further outside the harmonies and, just as modern classical composers (Stravinsky) did, threw away a lot of the traditional rules of harmony. Keep that in mind as an interesting and important parallel before being too quick to judge Stravinsky's concept of a "beautiful melody". Cheers.

Well said, Ghosthouse. Wonderful music.

Nice. Getting old indeed; didn't recognize the great George Cables at first. Used to go hear him at the Vanguard in Dexter's qt. back in the eighties; great player. David Weiss sounds very good on trpt. When Cables started to play I thought they were going to go into a slightly slower version of this classic (same chord voicing) :

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hwmRQ0PBtXU

Agree about Etta James; fabulous!

Re Stravinsky: .......well, I am really glad you liked it; let's leave it at that.
BTW, you might be interested to know that the trumpet part is written for and meant to be played on cornet; and, in fact, it is on your recording. Often played on trumpet 'though. The clarinetist on that recording is one of my idols, the late great Harold Wright.

Awesome! Thanks. And nothing like the sound of a real horn section; not the synth crap on a lot of the "new" stuff.
BTW, check out the pool player's breaking shot as the tune ends and the camera pans away. Right with the drummer's final hit; one could not have have planned that better :)

Yes, he can! Well, he is very old now (88) and not playing like he used too; but, he definitely could. Interesting and unique tone on the tenor for a player playing in that style. Another, almost forgotten.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mc7SydNIEg

Glad you guys enjoyed it. Acman3, I agree; the subtlety in his playing just keeps coming the more you listen.

Rok, WBGO is one of the treasures of the tri-state area. It's been broadcasting for quite a while and is probably the best of, sadly, only seven 24hr jazz stations left IN THE WORLD.

Glad you have come around to appreciating Phil Woods. In the spirit of lively debate (as always):

I am curious as to why you ever doubted his "stature in jazz"; his playing has always been proof of that stature. In previous posts you seemed to be critical or somewhat dismissive of him (I am still curious about your "Grrrrrrr" comment re Phil). Not trying to be provocative, but genuinely curious as to what it was that turned your opinion around for you?

If one could only have one of the many great Phil Woods records, "Live From The Showboat" would have to be it.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rMe6YO2Sp10

****You have the memory of an elephant!!****

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b1z4JfxFb6c

You gotta love it!

Thanks for the recommendations, Rok and Mitch; I will check them out.

Nice record! I listened to a couple of things from it on Youtube. It's a new to me as is Bobby Jaspar who I had heard about but never heard any of his recordings; nice tenor player. I have never been a huge Herbie Mann fan but this could change that. Thanks for sharing. If you like jazz flute this is a classic: "Flute Talk" with Sam Most and Joe Farrell (my favorite jazz flute player). On this cut they play alto flutes.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lybF3333Abo

Rok, I resisted giving you a hard time re Phil Woods in my previous post, but now that you brought the subject of your unforgivable transgression and oversight up again....:-)

Phil Woods is indeed one of the greats. Has been for a long time and I am glad that you have discovered him and that "he is everywhere" now (on your radar).

I will check out Ferrell and report back. Thanks.

O-10, I started to post on several occasions to ask if you were alright, but knew that you would let us know when ready. Glad you are back and that you are able to prevail over whatever it is that life has thrown your way. One thing is certain, music always helps a great deal; it feeds the spirit. Welcome back. This one's for you:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-xGPHseCQrI

****Amazing how musical taste can evolve.****

Yup! Sometimes, without even realizing it. I think it happens when we are open to the idea that our own musical taste is simply that, our own and nothing more; a certain amount of musical humility is a good thing. Then, before one knows it, music that sounded unbearable previously can sometimes become beautiful. It's about personal growth in our understanding of music in general. The process snowballs; before you know it, even "Lulu" will make sense and it's strange beauty can be understood.

The trick, however, is knowing when the music is simply not very good. That's part of the process too; after a while one just knows it and the judgment becomes more than simply an expression of our own taste (which, of course, will always be part of the equation; but, it will be in a better place). Jutta Hipp is, I think, a great example of this. I agree with you assessment of Hipp. Yeah, she can sort of get around the piano and she has a decent grasp of the language; but, with a definite (musical) accent. But, compared to the playing of the standard bearers, it's just not up to par. Hipp, in spite of her name, ain't too.

Finally had a chance to listen to the Ferrell clip; it can't be downloaded using an IPad and my wife and kids rule the computer :-). I did listen to a few other clips of hers that I could download. She is a phenomenal singer with amazing range and stylistic control. I had not heard her work, but had read a lot about her and, frankly, was suspicious of all the raves. She really is an amazing talent who can also write and plays the piano very well. Thanks for turning me on to her. I will say, however, that she strikes me as being at her best in a r&b or soul bag. Of all the clips that I heard of hers the one you posted, while really good, was not my favorite. This will sound as more critical than is intended, but I just don't think she is grounded in jazz the way that the great jazz singers are. To me, she is (in spite of her formidable vocal prowess) an r&b singer stretching out into jazz; the way Aretha does. The scatting (if one can call it that in this case) does not have the shape and structure of classic jazz improvisation. Not that it has to, but not only does it strike me as a little "over the top" as you suggest, but it just doesn't ring coherent for me. I think she has a tendency to overuse her amazing repertory of vocal calisthenics. Less would definitely be more in this case. Personally, I think she is at her best singing things like this:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uD_MUu55U

I find it difficult to watch her sing. I prefer to just listen. Way too much "mugging".

This is great news. Thanks for the heads up, Albert. Went to your link and right there on the first page of their catalog is one of my favorite records. Gary Burton's "Seven Songs For Qt. and Chamber Orchestra". This is going to cost me some money.

No, you're not. That was beautiful. I especially liked "Motherless Child". Lovely blend and intonation. Thanks, O-10.

Three tenors! Haven't seen that since Woody Herman's band. Distinctive horn section sound due to no alto and tenor heavy.

I don't think there is a singer that has more "Nawlins" vibe than this man:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N4OVqVXvg_Q

****I am currently reading a book about how classical music reflected the times and society in which it was written.****

Rok, I seem to recall having a rather heated exchange with you after I wrote those words in a post almost verbatim; actually, my comment was about music in general. That is one of the most basic tenets of musicology and something that if appreciated can give a lot of insight . Glad we are finally on the same page about this. See, we CAN agree :-)

Very first sounds I heard today when I woke up to this on WBGO this morning. What a way to start the day! There's groove and then there's GROOVE.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LNePe0E7KQ0

Acman3, thanks for the Joe Sullivan links. Nice! New to me. Very harmonically interesting writing; he has a unique voice harmonically. I particularly liked Lofsky's guitar playing.

Here's a band composed of some of the best young NY jazz cats.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ_BjtbP_Lk

O-10, great to see (read) you posting again. This is one of the most talented acapella vocal groups around. Most of their material is of a religious nature and their arrangements are extremely sophisticated with very tight harmonies and an almost instrumental approach.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BP_Cqo-bteY

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVRgoNv1lk0

Re Gregorian Chant (plainchant): monophonic. One single moving melodic line; no harmony.

It may come as a surprise to learn that there is an important similarity to jazz. No kidding! It has been asked a few times on this thread what exactly "modal" jazz is. Like modal jazz, plainchant is composed within the framework of a "mode"; modes in music as devised by the ancient Greeks. The simplest way to explain it is this:

Think of the most familiar, and simplest to visualize on a piano keyboard, scale. The C Major scale; eight successive white keys beginning on a C and ending on another C one octave higher (CDEFGABC; every scale is made up of eight notes). The first and last notes of the scale have a natural aural "pull"; the movement of a melody using that scale "wants" to end (resolve) on that note.

Sing "Happy Birthday", a very simple tune in a Major key: the melody starts on the fifth note (G) of a C Major scale and ends on a C. Now, sing it again, but this time, instead of ending on the last "you", end it on "to".

"...... Happy Birthday, dear Ro-ok, Happy Birthday, to....."

Notice how strongly your ear wants to go to "you"; to resolve. That is part of the "flavor" of a Major tonality.

Visualize the white keys on the piano keyboard again:

CDEFGABC(CDEFGABCDEFGABCDEFGABCDEFGABC etc.)

Now, instead of starting the scale on the "C", start it on the "D" and go up the keyboard to the "D" one octave higher: DEFGABCD

That is the first of the seven "modes"; Dorian mode. It is a mode very commonly used in Jazz with its own distinct "flavor"; different from Major and every other mode. It has its unique "flavor" due to the mathematical relationships of the notes within that particular scale and the subsequently weaker or stronger aural "pulls" to each note of that scale as compared to Major and the other modes.

Jazz tune in Dorian mode:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DEC8nqT6Rrk

You are welcome.

Funny video, btw.

Yes, and I particularly appreciated, in a brilliant stroke of orchestration genius, the addition (at 3:45) of the distinctive and subtle tone of the bassoon :-)

I wonder how that guy sounds on the opening of "Rite Of Spring"?

We can't have it both ways! We can't acknowledge that the arts reflect the times and then judge the quality of the art according to what it is reflecting, instead of, simply, how well it reflects it or not; wether we like what it is reflecting or not. These are two entirely different things. There will always be good jazz, just like there will always be good art in any genre.

****The early days of many genres were dominated and substained and nutured by players that formed a community, or culture. They knew each other and played together and many socialized together. They created a 'world' or 'society' in which this great music was produced. This was a world or society within the larger society.****

That is exactly what is going on today. On what do you base the notion that it is not? Young jazz musicians are part of "collectives" on a level never seen before and very much form a community with very clear and serious creative goals. To think otherwise is to shortchange, not only these young players, but jazz itself which has always stood for pushing forward and evolving. These guys (and ladies) are not "into it for money and fame", and to say that making great art is less important to this younger generation of creative musicians is grossly inaccurate and unfair.

That we may each like jazz in a certain style more than another style is an entirely different matter. We keep coming back to this debate which ultimately proves to be pointless and very limiting. Yes, it is true that there is no substitute for actual real-world playing experience, but the learning done in school is producing a great number of young players with the kind of well-rounded understanding of the basics and a technical skill that never seen before. And, they don't want to play like the players before them, they want to find new voices. We might do well to listen to more of these players, they deserve our support.

Just one example; in support of a local group.

http://brooklynjazz.org/index.php

****Go out to hollywood to take a group photo of all the great western / cowboy stars. You may find a couple. They are all gone. Because Westerns are all gone.****

Huh?! Strange analogy, but re your post in general, see my previous post; I said it all before. Just what is it you think, that when I say that there is a lot of good jazz still being played, that I am making this up? As I said before your points go to the issue of popularity; what does that prove?

**** So it is possible I am not up to speed on the current crop of Jazz players.****

You think? More like the understatement of the year (thread). I suppose I could turn the tables on you and ask YOU to name a few to prove my point, but I will recommend a few. Some of my favorite young jazz players:

http://tednash.com

"The Mancini Project" is a favorite, but any of his recordings are worth hearing; as are any of the recordings by the following.

http://richperrymusic.com

http://www.garysmulyan.com/m/

http://home.earthlink.net/~smoulden/scott/scott.html#lp1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hagans

http://fredhersch.com/index.php

Lots more, but this should get you started.

Cheers.

Rok, thanks for your impressions of those young players. I don't know what you listened to by Ted Nash, but I would give him another listen; he really is a great player. I must say that I don't know what the hell the comment that "he talks too much" ("he's fat"?) has to do with wether the guy can play or not? Try this (and you can ignore the visual "accompaniment" by the Youtube poster):

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E-njySw6I_U

I just had a thought that relates to the "abstract" question (I will give Learsfool the first shot at that one) and visuals when listening to music. As nice as videos of live performances are, I think we have had ample proof of the problem with what we SEE during a performance coloring our reaction to the music. I think it is fair to say that the quality of the music should be judged on its own and not be influenced by wether a performer does too many facial contortions, "dresses like a buffoon", or "talks too much".

Anyway, the business of "popularity" is getting a little tiresome and the main point is being missed. Facts:

-Artists don't go into the arts for the money or popularity.

-That jazz is less popular now than it once was does not mean that there is no quality jazz now; or, even, less jazz now. I hope my recent links have demonstrated this amply.

****Name me one artist that is considered great, but not popular with his audience, intended or otherwise.****

That is a very strange and illogical question. If an artist has an audience, is he not, by definition, popular? Nonetheless, a couple of thoughts:

Why then, did so many greats (Dexter Gordon) have to move to Europe?: because his audience was shrinking; iow, jazz was becoming less popular in the USA. Did that make him less of a player? And, btw, most of these guys didn't move to Europe for the applause, they moved there to make a living because there simply wasn't enough work here.

Food for thought:

****In Europe, they like everything you do. The mistakes and everything. That’s a little bit too much.****. - Miles

The reason that I feel so strongly about the subject of "popularity", particularly as concerns the young crop of players, is that I know a lot of those guys and I know how they struggle to make ends meet while maintaining an incredible sense of dedication to their music with interest in popularity being so far behind their interest in honing their craft and making great art that it is impossible to describe. In spite of a much smaller audience base compared to the past when jazz was the popular music, jazz continues to thrive and move forward. Let's remember that jazz artists themselves were often reluctant to call the music "jazz" because they felt the name was too limiting. That Miles seems to be defending Dixieland in that quote is not the point of his comment, but that limiting ourselves to a narrow view of what jazz is is stupid.

Re triads:

Don't have any more time now, but I will quickly point out that a triad is simply a chord comprised of two thirds stacked on top of each other. Four kinds of triads: major, minor, diminished and augmented. There is much more to it, and while I think you are a great candidate for and would strongly encourage you to buy yourself a keyboard (electronic if you don't want the expense and hassle of a real piano/you would not believe what can be bought for around $250) as a learning tool, for now, a printout of a keyboard off the internet would make things much much easier to understand if you want to go further.

Cheers

We can debate the issue of the meaning of popularity ad nauseum, and I could point out that you could not be more mistaken re the motivation of true artists being popularity since to most true artists popularity, even when sought and achieved, is secondary to the simple need to perform their craft; no matter what. However, as concerns this discussion the point that you, perhaps conveniently, continue to ignore is that jazz WAS the popular music at one time and is no longer for many reasons already discussed, that in no way does that mean that great jazz is no longer being played; quite the contrary.

Your feelings about popularity as concerns the artist really don't come as a surprise. For some insight into your mindset about this, I would bring up, again, the subject of the great Phil Woods. When first discussed, and after my accolades of his playing you were, at best, unimpressed with his playing and your most positive comment about him was "He's fat". Months later, as you read more and more about him and became more and more aware of the countless recordings he was on and how he was held in the very highest esteem by top players, all of a sudden he seemed to move closer to the top of your list (so to speak). I would suggest that his great stature was there to be heard and did not need the support of anything else aside from your ears.

Let us know what you think of the players I recommended.

****I don’t like to hear someone put down dixieland. Those people who say there’s no music but bop are just stupid; it shows how much they don’t know.**** - Miles

****I say, play your own way. Don’t play what the public wants. You play what you want and let the public pick up on what you’re doing? even if it does take them fifteen, twenty years. **** - Monk

****Always look ahead, but never look back. **** - Miles

****I don’t know where jazz is going. Maybe it’s going to hell. You can’t make anything go anywhere. It just happens. **** - Monk

No pressure, Acman3; I was not taking you to task with my comment at all.

O-10, I am not quite sure I understand what the problem is. I can appreciate and respect Acman3's choice to not engage in much of the debate/discussion, but, over the last three days alone, there have been close to a dozen links to new music and no reaction to them except from Rok and I who are the most "guilty" of discussing the "factors around the music". Some of us find it very interesting to discuss the factors around the music. In my opinion that is, in great part, what leads to new discoveries, because by discussing these is, in fact, one of the most important ways to "broaden the definition". The problem is that, as usual, we can't have it both ways. If we simply want to share links to music that we each like and leave it at that, that is fine; but, if one doesn't want to be subject to discussing the "factors around the music", then I think those posts should be free of proclamations about things that may need to be challenged when they have no basis in fact or reality. There have been, and continue to be, comments made about the state of jazz, what is jazz, the quality of certain artists, etc. that are simply not rooted in what is the accepted wisdom (and, in many cases, fact) on those subjects. There is a deep and pervasive romanticized and politicized (for lack of a better word) influence on many listeners' views of the sphere of the art world that is simply incorrect, and this can lead to a bias and very premature dismissal of certain music without first giving it a fair shot. As you have often pointed out, the reasons for our individual likes and dislikes is subjective, but it is important to understand that there are, in fact, certain objective standards that separate good art from bad. I commend Rok for wanting to broaden his horizons by learning more about, yes I will say it, the nuts and bolts.

And BTW, Rok, for whatever it may be worth, Wynton thinks Ted Nash is "the bomb". I don't know if you connected the dots, but Ted is 2nd alto in the LCJB and is often featured and has gotten some recent commissions for new works (worth hearing).

Acman3, yeah, a shame that the Sullivan clip is only getting 50 views. You're right about the NTS, a lot of great young players have come out of that program and the One O'clock Lab Band. Do you ever hear about or know a trumpet player (also plays saxophone, incredibly enough) named Bob Meyer? When I was going to school at U of Miami in the late '70's there was a guy from Texas (Austin, I think) who was living and teaching at U of M. I remember that he was a rough-around-the edges player, but with fantastic jazz feel and style. I have often wondered what happened to him; I had heard he moved back to Texas.

I will checkout Chris Parker; thanks for the tip.

I am reposting with (hopefully) working links.

Agree about Michelle Rosewoman. And like Chazro points out, not for the faint-hearted; but, man her stuff is interesting! One of the most creative musicians on the Latin scene; she kills!

Where's ONE?!

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sHhZAIs8XrA

This intro is just beautiful! The great Howard Johnson plays some beautiful penny-whistle (!) and then kills on tuba.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ60HyN9Eos

And some keep claiming that jazz is dead?!

That was a curved (as opposed the more common straight) soprano.

No, but watched the intro; seems worthwhile. Go for it!

Thanks for the clips. On that first clip, in spite of the poor audio quality, I can hear the Bob Meyer that I remember; good writer, too.

Your clips led me to, and reminded me of, a clip of Bob playing with South Fla legend and Chicago native Ira Sullivan. We often bring up the topic of players who seem to go into relative obscurity and and don't seem to get their due. As has also been pointed out, and as incredible as it may seem, some artists simply don't care about popularity and fame. These guys are incredibly dedicated to their art and they just want to play their music; Ira Sullivan is one of those people. One of the most interesting people I have ever had the pleasure of knowing and one of the most incredible multi-instrumentalists ever, Ira could burn on trumpet/flugelhorn, all the saxophones and on flute. He is 83 now and still playing great. Every instrument he plays sounds like his main axe; incredible!

Ira on trumpet:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=igJKk5L8EF0

On tenor:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4y5-ImyDTr0

On flute (next to Joe Farrell, my favorite jazz flute player:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ry-stUpBXEQ

On alto and trumpet with another almost forgotten great bebopper Red Rodney. Skip to 6:00 for an amazing exchange between Ira and Red:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=69zE8JrTdCg

I believe that a really good and worthy goal for any discerning music lover is to be able to truly understand the difference between not liking a particular artist's music and feeling that he "doesn't have it in him"; they are two very different things. It's a tricky thing: how does one acknowledge good artistry while at the same time not liking it? Pat Metheny is a brilliant musician. Clearly, his soft-toned and not-obviously-blues-based concept with its sound-pastiche vibe is not to everyone's liking, but the guy is amazing with his very subtle improvisational ideas and unique sound; even if he doesn't wear a suit :-)

I agree with the comments about James Booker. I knew of him and the fact that he had mentored players like Dr. John, but had not heard his recordings. Rok, thanks for the introduction and I am pretty much amazed by what I have heard so far; definitely someone to become more acquainted with.

The Yellow Jackets are still going strong and I recommend you give the band another shot. "Samurai Samba" is from an early iteration of the band. Personally, Marc Russo's alto sound with its relentless and almost hyper vibe drives me crazy. The band of the last several years has featured Bob Mintzer on reeds with a very welcome and much more sophisticated and insightful playing style; he is also a wonderful composer and arranger.

O-10, you ask a poignant question: "Why?". I suppose it's simply because musicians are people just like anyone else in any walk of life, with personal demons and different capacities to deal with them. Now, add genius to the mix. We would like to think that the type of insight that is a hallmark of genius would help them deal with those demons; but, ironically, it seems that the insight sometimes only serves to give a better look into the whatever torment they must be feeling and not necessarily help them find a way out.

Thanks for the clip Acman3; nice.

Nuts and bolts.

I was in China about three months ago. I sat down to a meal with a very food-adventurous colleague at a very interesting restaurant and ordered, at his recommendation, a crazy dish with jellyfish as it's centerpiece. The strange combination of exotic and new-to-me flavors and strange textures were definitely not to my liking. However, there was no question that the chef was a master. The presentation was incredible and the weird flavors had an unmistakably perfect balance, right down to the partnering soup (?) that, as weird as IT tasted, was perfect for the dish. It all screamed: "Only a great chef could do this and there are foodies out there that love this stuff". Not for me 'though.

****it's more important that the reviewer's taste and musical sensibilities coincide with those of the reader and are demonstrated to be consistent over time.****

Exactly right.

Re Korea: When in Asia recently, Korea was one of the stops. It was absolutely amazing how modernized Korea was. There was a sense that the country was running on all cylinders and going full speed ahead; a force to be reckoned with and very impressive.

Re jazz and Asia: soloist on part of the tour was the very impressive Makoto Ozone. Fantastic jazz pianist also at home in the Classical arena:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G22GY6JhZQI&list=PLj0AGSl1lDjNTsQlpKBfkh7v7FPw2SDLc

This is part of a repeat of one of the Asia tour programs back in NYC (hint: there is a frog in the orchestra :-) :

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BxowOVIdnR0&list=PLj0AGSl1lDjNTsQlpKBfkh7v7FPw2SDLc

****Computers don't go on the fritz these days. ****

Tell that to Lois Lerner.

"Nuts and bolts" is not irrelevant in any genre of music. If you really believe that then you don't understand what is meant by the expression.

****but I never heard anything that remotley sounded like this.****

Well, as my 11yr old likes to say: Duh! Who said it does or that it's trying to?

****I wonder what John Lee and the boys would make of it.****

I would bet that they would really dig it; because great musicians are open minded and appreciate great playing no matter the style (or color).

Now, what exactly is your point? Comparing that "blues" tune to Delta blues is pointless. Why get hung up on the title? That it is a blues is indisputable: twelve bar form and classic blues harmonic progression. But then, you knew that; no? Seems to me that the only thing that matters is wether it's good playing or not.

So, don't just throw barbs, tell us why exactly anything that was written about O'Connor's performance (and more importantly, Grapelli's) is not true, and why exactly Carter's playing is superior (if that is what you are suggesting). After all, it's the violin playing that was the subject of the discussion; no?

Cheers.

Rok, I fully expected a response along these lines. My impression is that when there isn't unequivocal agreement with your assessment of an artist there seems to be a knee jerk reaction in the negative instead of a substantive discussion of the particulars of the "why's and how's"; perhaps I am mistaken

***That the clip was an example of 'nuts&bolts' blues. IOW, it met some school book definition of the blues.****

Perhaps your school book. I already conceded that it is not like Delta blues and pointed out that to make the comparison is pointless. But, to suggest that those guys can't play is ludicrous; those guys can play and they demonstrate superior musicianship even if falling short in the area of authenticity as compared to Delta blues.

****Now, my question. What was your point in presenting the O'Conner clip? ESP since the discussion was not about violins or blues.****

The discussion certainly was about violins. My point was the same as in presenting the Grapelli clips: as a way of explaining, while agreeing that Carter is a good player, why I am not impressed with her playing quite as much as others are, and why I prefer to listen to other players. I believe I made my point very clear previously. All, as an extension of O-10's comment and query about her tone; and the reason why the discussion had turned to violins. Now, why did you turn it into a discussion about the blues and the authenticity of a particular style of playing? That would be fine; as I am sure you know by now I welcome a challenge. The difference is, however, that while I agreed that Carter was a good player there were aspects of her playing that I did not like; and, I offered specifics. You dismissed the O'Connor performance out of hand as "school book", "they can't play", etc. C'mon!

Obviously, we will have disagreements. What I can offer is this: it may come as a surprise to you, but I don't have any less appreciation for Delta Blues and it's authenticity (or not) than you do; I have listened to a lot more of it than you may imagine. You seem to regularly dismiss the (perhaps ill-chosen term) "nut and bolts" and suggest that somehow it also means a distraction from some sort of inner and deeper appreciation of the soul of music; you couldn't be more mistaken. This is a recurring theme in this thread. I can only keep trying to point out and encourage you to understand that deeper understanding of the "inner workings" (is that better?) of music leads to deeper appreciation of ALL aspects of music. I will concede that this concept may not apply to everyone as I can understand how going to that analytical place may be an insurmountable distraction FOR SOME. In a nutshell, and to sum up why I made the comments that I made about the three players mentioned (and it relates to the subject of authenticity vs. "nuts and bolts"):

As I have said before, I love food analogies. I have been on a Mexican food kick lately. I cook it and have been to various restaurants of various pedigrees lately. Some restaurants are of the Mom and Pop variety and offer truly authentic Mexican food; "the real deal" and evoke being being home (I am not Mexican), grandma and all that good stuff. At the opposite end of the spectrum are those restaurants that offer "Nuveau-Mexican" cuisine prepared by chefs that have impeccable and schooled technique and offer creations that are sometimes delicious and are prepared with the finest ingredients and presented in unique and visually beautiful ways; unfortunately, sometimes these creations have only a passing resemblance to traditional Mexican cooking. Now for the rub (pun intended):

There are also those restaurants of the Mom and Pop (and Nuveau) variety that offer food that is simply not that good. Authentic? Yes; but, just so-so in its execution and resulting taste. It may be too oily, too salty, served cold or prepared with old and inferior ingredients. So which would I prefer to eat? The "authentic" but mediocre food, or the excellent Nuveau (and barely Mexican) food? For me, it's a no-brainer.

Cheers.

Interesting segue!

I don't understand the question. The score is the score and the music is the music as the composer intended it; no more, no less.

Rok, truly no disrespect intended, but unless I am missing something in your question, that is a rather bizarre question; and the reason I keep trying to encourage you to learn more about the... well, you know what (and it can't be bought at a hardware store).

Let me try to answer your question this way:

I am sure that you have several versions of LvB's 9th. OK, so when you listen to them do you hear differences in the music, version to version, other than possibly stylistic differences in the playing and/or singing? You shouldn't. The score is exactly the same always with the possible exception of relatively minor differences in the various editions (certain repeated passages, corrected notes etc.); but, those differences don't, in any way, make the music any more difficult or easier to perform. The scores of major works are considered pretty sacrosanct; you don't mess with them in a significant way. Don't confuse this with some versions of works performed by some of the "classical-lite" orchestras like that of that Andre Rieu dude where the scores are sometimes "modified" to better suit the showy vibe with the multi-colored ladies' concert dress; that stuff is pretty much bullshit.

I would appreciate some more info re your question to give a better answer.

Absolutely! That, the skill level of their respective conductors and, as an extension of skill level, the stylistic identity of the players and hence the orchestra. Eventhough the traditionally strong stylistic personalities of the various orchestras has been getting homogenized in our era of globalization they still remain an obvious force. This individuality is a result of the cultural forces in a given country and the resultant training that musicians receive. Every major orchestra has a certain "sound" identity which would not be able to be expressed if the skill level of the players were not extremely high. The Berlin players are unlikely to "forget to put the meat in the Gerschnetzeltes" :-)

BTW, thanks for the kind words. There are others who are deserving; not the least of which are the music lovers.

****Miles went to Juilliard*** His first mistake. I knew there was something wrong there.****

Hmmmm, so did Wynton.