****Was there bad blood between Adderley and Hancock? Anyone know?****
Probably not; other than the bad blood that existed between the "purists" and the ones who, in their view, "sold out" (Herbie/ funk, Headhunters etc.). Pretty silly and ironic if you ask me. Remember the "Kung Fu" clip with Cannon, Jose Feliciano and Carradine? It's sobering to realize that some of our heroes can be such close-minded musical bigots; they are human too. |
|
I just read the Wiki article on "Mozambique". It says this:
"Although the rhythm shares many characteristics with Sub-Saharan African music traditions, it does not have anything to do with music from the African nation of Mozambique"
It's funny how we sometimes see what we want to see. That comment clearly points out the African connection; but, it points out that, although implied by the name of that particular rhythm, it does not relate to the music of the country Mozambique specifically. |
****Spirituals, Blues, and Jazz are uniquely American, with no African influence I can detect.**** O-10, that comment is almost as surprising as Rok's. I think the operative part of the comment, and what keeps it from being inaccurate is "that I can detect". That one can't detect something does not mean that it isn't there; simply that one cannot detect (hear) it....yet. I think one has to be careful about making comments like that as if they are fact without first having a really thorough grasp of the literature on the subject and what those who have studied the music and its origins very thoroughly have to say on the matter. Of course blues, spirituals and jazz are uniquely American creations, but the African influence is very strong. Again, influence is not the same as creation. And btw, the cross-cultural influences in music are not unique to African culture; the same can be said of any culture that had any significant contact with another. All this becomes obvious if one understands what the components of music are on a deeper level. How can we understand how the use of "blue" notes or polymetric rhythms in African music influenced the blues and jazz if we don't know what a blue note is? Do we? And that is only the tip of the iceberg. The potential in these discussions is great, but we are going to keep coming up against these obstacles and distractions if instead of keeping a more open mind to how much there is to learn there is commentary presented as fact when it isn't. The following link is highly recommended reading from an "authority" on the subject; and, before we are too quick to deem the article "feel good, politically correct nonsense" (or something like that) I encourage you to remember that practically every jazz player on the planet would agree with it. Cheers. http://www.jazzedmagazine.com/2893/articles/focus-session/the-african-origins-of-jazz/ |
#7 "Pio Mentiroso". A "guaracha". Â Guaracha is a style characterized by a typically faster tempo than most other Cuban music styles. Â It gained popularity in Cuban theater productions and is notable for the "dialogue" between the vocal soloist and the chorus. Â The themes of the songs are usually of a light and happy nature and it should be noted that in this "dialogue" the soloist typically improvises his lyrics.
Counter to the guaracha's typically "happy" feeling, it is particularly  interesting to note the role that Cuban musical theater and the guaracha had in the emancipation of slaves in Cuba.  Both the songs and it's companion dance often made political commentary criticizing the establishment's attitude towards slavery. |
I guess this is the "jumping around" that O-10 referred to. Does this mean we are done with Cuban music?
So, was there anything of interest in my posts, Rok? Learn anything? Disagree with anything? This is a crucial moment in these discussions, IMO. One can either jump ship or take things to another level and really make things insteresting and learn something; or, do the usual retreat to the comfort zone. |
****You are a smart guy, examine the facts, and do the math. And don't forget the left-wing elites in the arts, have an agenda.****
Well, this comment can be interpreted one of two ways; either as faint praise or as insulting. Don't misunderstand, I don't take offense and I am also confident that you mean well. But, the comment is too rich with stuff that goes to the crux of the matter to ignore. I'll explain:
It could be interpreted as insulting because you assume that I have not done the math. Moreover, you suggest that I would let whatever agenda the "left-wing elites" might have for presenting the argument override MY ability to analyze the issue, primarily by way of what my ears tell me, and arrive at MY own conclusions; conclusions shared by the overwhelming majority of those who know what they are talking about. And btw, the "left-wing elite" argument is, with all due respect, a pretty lame and sophomoric one. What you fail to recognize is that the argument about the African influence on jazz was well-accepted analysis way before our society developed any interest in crediting people of color for anything. But enough of that. I have no issue with your disagreement on a personal level and my motivation is simply to try and help you see the facts; and, more importantly help you develop a way of looking at these issues that is relevant to the act of listening to music. I say relevant because listening and enjoying is one thing, but analyzing the music or it's history is another and I am afraid that your version of "the math" is way off base. Again, you are willing to concede the probability of the African connection in Cuba, not because you can HEAR the influence, but because your "math" makes sense. As I said before, don't worry about the math and let your ears tell you the truth. Remember the "cables" debate? You're simply not hearing it. A challenge:
Did you read the link to the article about Gunther Schuller's explanation of the African connection in jazz? Now, rather than simply dismiss the plausibility of his premise, explain why what he poses is NOT plausible; why what he poses is incorrect. But not because "the math" doesn't add up in your view; rather, explain why the musical analysis that he presents is incorrect. I would be very curious.
Re "Bolero":
They were probably "ignored" for a couple of reasons. Probably because there are too many submissions at any one time to cover them all, and only a couple of contributors to this thread have more than a passing interest in that music. Now, MY honest reasons for not commenting on them (no intention to ignore): First, how many times will we comment on Bolero? Its been done several times before and as great a piece as it is (in its way) it's not exactly the most interesting piece of music in the rep; by a long shot. More importantly, your definition of "magical" is not the same as mine. Perhaps the visual element of the dance makes it magical for you, but for me those two performances of Bolero are not particularly good and I see no point in criticizing your submission when there are so many others to comment on. Bolero is an interesting piece because it's repetitiveness and "simplicity" lays bare the soloists and the ensemble, making playing that is less than first rate very obvious. If those performances were magical from the standpont of the orchestra's performance, what would one call another performance that has better flow, better ensemble playing, more expressive and (at the same time) more rhythmically accurate solos, and better sense of drama? MORE magical?
Here's to encouraging you to dig a little deeper.
Cheers.
BTW, did you try the clave rhythm exercise? Or should I complain that it was completely ignored :-) |
O-10, so "jumping around" is ok now? :-) |
Rok, I don't know where you get your facts. The premier of Bolero was a huge success. If by "riot" you mean the cheering of the crowd then you're right; if you mean that the "riot" was a sign of disapproval you are incorrect. I also don't understand on what you base comments such as: ****If it weren't for Bolero the guy would probably be unknown today**** That comment could not be further from the truth. "Bolero", while popular is considered one of Ravel's least important works. Are you familiar with his orchestration of "Pictures At An Exibition", "Daphnis et Chloe", "Concerto In G" and many others which are considered some of the greatest orchestral music ever written? Look, you probably feel that I am picking on you. That is not my intention, but you are making some comments which are only unsubstantiated but more than a little silly. Tchaikovsky would be unknown if it weren't for the 1812 Overture?!? You must be joking. Re the latest Bolero clip: Sorry, but no cigar. Why the insistence on choreographed versions of the piece? First of all, Bolero was not composed as accompaniment to choreography. When a piece of music is choreographed there will almost always be compromises made in the performance of the music; usually in the areas of tempo and dynamics in oder to suit the choreographer's vision. In this case the piece starts with way too much energy; especially the snare which should be much more subdued. Starting the piece with so much energy means that the dynamic contrast between the beginning and the end (which is what the piece is all about) will be compressed. The solos with the exception of the opening flute solo are not so great with some funky intonation and hesitation in spots. Here's a great Bolero (btw, notice how Muti actually stops conducting in some spots; a great conductor can do that): https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=-7ZBzIXoJDM |
****Rok, let me tell you a tru story about slaves here and their drums. At first the boss man didn't mind, and the drums had catchy rhythms, but when somebody told him, "Hey boss man, did you know they could talk with them drums"? That changed things; from that time on, the drum was outlawed. The very next night, "I thought I told yall to stop beatn them damn drums"! How can you have African music without a drum?**** O-10, I am sure that you have heard the term Santeria. Â Santeria is the religion that African slaves in Caribbean countries "synthesized" by giving their African gods Roman Catholic names in order to bypass the outlawing of their religion by their masters. Â "How can you have African music without a drum"......How can you have your religion without your Gods? While it would be ideal to understand the African influence on jazz from the standpoint of musical analysis (which makes it clear and obvious) looking at this parallel might make it easier to understand the answer to your question; "the math". In answer to your specific question "How can you have African music without a drum"? Â Easily, Â the drum is the vehicle, the means to an end; it plays rhythms......so does any other instrument including the human voice. Â THAT is how the African influence on jazz can be heard: the "blue" notes found in their native music and most importantly the "swing" feeling, the swagger and looseness; these are such a big part of the feeling of jazz as opposed to the more rigid or "square" feeling which is typical of the music of the European tradition. Â Combine that swagger, "blue" notes with European melody and harmony and you get........jazz. Â This does not take anything away from the fact that jazz is a uniquely American art form; it IS America's most important art from. Â However, just as we like to say that America is a "melting pot" of cultures, why should it be any different re it's music. Â I think that the issue of musical INFLUENCE is something that deserves much more understanding, not just as concerns African music and Jazz, but as concerns jazz in general; and, would be extremely informative as we look at various individual jazz artists. It lets the entire lineage make more sense. We recently revisited the subject of Coltrane (it never goes away; nor should it). Â I can't think of a better example of "influence" than this. Â Coltrane on alto saxophone sounding amazingly like Bird himself. Â When one listens to late Coltrane the Bird influence is much much harder to discern; he had taken that influence, fused it with his own vision and had taken off. Â However, it takes more than the ability to simply recognize an alto compared to a tenor in order to hear the Bird influence when listening to later Trane. https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=MGnY-axUH0U |
Schubert, good question. Perhaps because I keep hoping. Hoping that someone who clearly has passion for music can change a skewed perspective.
Regards. |
You crack me up, Rok. There is so much incongruity and contradiction in many of your views that I sometimes wonder if it's all a joke. Here we have a person who is staunchly "conservative" with his opinions on jazz, but is eager to credit "the masses" for knowing what excels and what does not.
****Once again you miss the point. I thought it was composed as a Ballet?****
Really? Given the above, who do you think is really missing the point. The person who makes clear and factual commentary about the piece, or the person who doesn't even know that the piece was not a ballet, nor can notice all of the mentioned problems with a performance of it. You cut yourself way too much slack.
****Ravel: Of course he wrote other pieces of music. They appear as FILLER, on every copy of BOLERO I own. And if you don't understand how ONE piece can make a career, well you have not been paying attention to the music business.****
I don't know what to say. However, I will say that I am still waiting for a cogent explanation about how the masses are who decide what is good when it is the masses who deem the likes of Kenny G, Madonna, etc. as worthy of their support.
****Public ignores all his 'serious' stuff****
You really do to get out more often.
****Paris: I read that report in one of the British Magazines that did a spread on either Bolero or Ravel. I am almost sure of that. Can't remember which one. I have tooo many to try and find it. I stand by the qoute. I remember it well.****
I believe you have the premiers of Bolero and Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" mixed up. It was the notorious premier of "Rite" that caused the well documented "riot", not Bolero. Oh, that's right...it's another case of "don't bother me with the facts, I will just create my own private reality".
****Pictures!! One of my favorites. Orchestrating other folks compositions, is not the same as writing your own. I have made my point, so I will concede he did do other things. Like a lot of one hit wonders.****
It really must be a joke. "one hit wonder"? Incredible!
BTW, Did you listen to the Muti Bolero? How about some commentary
about that performance? |
Re the Africa thing and your last post. Please reread what has been said about this. You have blinders on because the idea that your long-held views could be off base is apparently difficult to digest. No one (O-10) said anything about drums in the US; rather, the Caribbean. You obviously did not read my explanation on "influence" vs creation, nor the comment about the instruments being simply a means to an end. |
Rok, well, I am duly busted on that Bolero factoid. Total brain fart and I hang my head in shame for my memory lapse. Bolero, nonetheless! a piece that have played more times than I care to remember. I could go on about the reasons related to its history why I made that error, but I will spare you the agony. If you care, I will gladly torture with those facts. Hey, nobody is perfect (close) and your facts in this department are so often wrong that that I confess it was easy to assume that you were wrong again :-). Obviously, I stand by all my other comments. Here's the Muti link again: https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=-7ZBzIXoJDMI am going to give you a little insight into what makes for good orchestral ensemble playing and is what of the things that separates the great orchestras (Wiener) from the merely good (Proms). Listen to the entrance of the 2nd flute at the end of the flute solo; at 1:12 on the Muti. Believe it or not that is one of the hardest things in all of Bolero. The 2nd flute has to come in cold and in perfect rhythmic unison with the snare drum and in the low register of the instrument; very very difficult! The Wiener 2nd flute comes in decisively and in perfect rhythm. On the Plisetskaia recording (and most others) the 2nd flute falters a bit and sounds insecure and uncorfortale for at least several beats. Check it out; I promise your head won't explode :-) |
Rok, I know exactly why I talk to you and I have made it perfectly clear; no need to wonder here. Sorry you don't appreciate my motivation. You can proceed as you please and ignore whatever you wish. I won't actively ignore anything posted here including your posts as long as I continue to participate or unless I want to ignore it; seems too childish to me and frankly I am not personally invested in any of this and neither should you be. Why you find anything I may have said more offensive than some of you have said is just one the mysteries of our interaction. Alas.
Cheers
BTW, try that Clave exercise. Takes a little practice, but really helps understand rhythm. |
The article's author uses the term "jazz" very very loosely; absurdly so. From that standpoint, I would agree that the article is "nonsense" and what he describes as "jazz" bears little resemblance to what we consider jazz. The author concedes this point: ****Generally, African jazz is much more closely related to African folk/classical music than African American jazz is**** Personally, I am not very bothered by the appropriation of the name "jazz" because I understand that for many (especially outside America) the term jazz refers simply to a music that (just as American culture in general) is an amalgam of many cultural influences; and with a dose of the requisite element of improvisation. The main problem with this music ("African jazz") for me is that I just don't think it's very good; it's not very sophisticated nor developed. The farther it gets from the indigenous, the weaker it seems to be. I think a key to understanding (at least conceptually) the previously discussed question of the African influence in American jazz may be found in some of this music and the search for the reverse: the influence of American jazz in African music ("jazz"?). The African influence in American jazz may be perceived as, at best, subtle to the point of insignificance if one doesn't understand cross-cultural influences in art at a very fundamental level. We tend to look for (listen) for obvious signs in order to say "aha! there's the influence"; ain't gonna happen that way. When I listen to a clip like the one above by the South African "jazz legend" (give me a break!) what I hear is third rate or, at best, second rate "smooth jazz" as we know it here in America. BUT, there are subtle signs that let me hear a direct connection (influence) to indigenous African music and tell me these are not American musicians playing this music. There is a unique flavor to the rhythmic feel of the music as well as an "accent" in the harmonic vocabulary of the improvisations that are telltale and are obvious connections to the indigenous music of the players' culture. Unfortunately, the overall effect is, for me, not very convincing. If I were to HAVE to listen to this sort of thing there are far better examples on smooth jazz radio stations or elevators to be heard. I don't think that "African jazz" is a good example of the state of jazz outside the USA. There is a lot of good (sophisticated and well developed) jazz happening outside America. Why there is not credible jazz happening in Africa may be the result of the overriding rhythm-centric nature of their indigenous music (almost devoid of sophisticated harmony or melody) while European music's main contribution to the amalgam of "jazz" is in the realm of harmony and melody while still containing a strong rhythmic element; although different in nature than that which was African music's main influence on jazz. So, it follows that in Europe there were fewer conceptual elements to overcome for American jazz to be a significant influence. https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=06_uCl_Bovs |
Cuong Vu does not represent the future. Frankly, I am astounded that so much attention was given to a minimal talent and so much time given to his thoughts and opinions; which proved to be musically sophomoric, vapid and predictable at best. I believe that the reason that this interview even took place is nothing more than political correctness run amuck ("the Vienamese refugee who now plays "jazz"). Media manipulation is often a much worse enemy of art than artists themselves.
And please, if you dislike the trumpet so much, stop playing the damn thing! |
|
The best jazz is a very rich art form; and, while obviously very different in nature than the great Classical music (and great non-music art forms) it is undoubtedly of the same stature as far as its overall artistic merit. That may seem like stating the obvious, but the point is that, just as the music itself is extremely nuanced, when it is at such a high level to begin with it deserves to be critiqued in a nuanced way. It's a matter of degree; KOB may not be the greatest jazz recording ever, but I suppose that if the "unwashed" are truly the final arbiters, then it probably deserves to be considered one of them. As far as I am concerned there is nothing like a long hot shower :-) |
|
Kathleen Battle:
****....which is easier to quantify than artistic merit, which is nearly impossible.**** - Mapman
Sorry, could not disagree more. Some performances (artists) are obviously a cut above. Artistic-worth relativism is not for me.
Excellent analogy, 'though: KOB/Sgt. Pepper's ... |
****Frogman, I'm going to explain one of "your" problems, and never repeat or comment on it.****
Well, that is a patently unfair stance. However, the OP is always entitled to a concession or two; a special privilege :-)
****"You can take the horse to the water, but you can't make him drink". This can be applied a thousand and one way's in various situations; however, no one ever ran across a "Roking Horse" before, and "Roking horses" don't get thirsty.****
I'm not so sure. Maybe not drinking yet; but definitely tasting it.... slowly. There are far wore "problems".
Harold Land: beautiful player; unusual tone. Agree! |
Well, I am actually glad that you decided to not "ignore" my posts; I knew you wouldn't be able to since quality and logic are difficult to ignore :-). Now, as is often the case your analysis is mired in reactive and fairly shallow thinking which, unfortunately, misses the point. To relegate KOB to simply audiophile fodder is absurd and serves only to deny yourself a more in-depth and insightful understanding of the subtleties being discussed and presented.
To suggest that a meaningful conclusion can be drawn from asking "what the best fruit is" other than one person'a opinion is simply shallow thinking when there is so much to consider. The need to take sides and fall into one camp or another, likewise, belies shallow thinking. Please reread my posts with a more open mind; you might learn something.
Cheers. |
O-I0, I am surprised at how strongly you reacted to my comments and I think you missed some of what I was trying to say. I have previously made my comments re KOB clear: I don't consider it the greatest nor the greatest of Miles' records. Moreover, I didn't say I prefer it to SE. In a nutshell , I simply said that I find the playing on a somewhat higher level on KOB , but that "conceptually", I have problems with KOB. "Standards" a "putdown"? Huh? NOT AT ALL. In the context of my comments it's a simple fact. Those tunes are standards; that's how they are categorized and what Miles himself would have called them. If anything, my comments about the "tunes" on KOB are the putdown. And no I m not going from memory since I listen to SE pretty regularly; I think it's a great record with some great playing. The best ever? Not for me. That's all I was saying and I pointed out, per your request, what I consider to be the differences and similarities and they are subtle, but audible nonetheless. I do think that Blakey sounds, as usual, a little lazy and sloppy. That's his style and not my cup of tea. He is obviously a great drummer. Anyway, I could go on point for point, but the important points are ( and you didn't address them directly): Cohesion is the type and level of musical interaction that a group of musicians ( a band, orchestra, chamber group) develops by playing together a lot and is simply not possible with a "pick-up" group regardless of ability. Obviously, inferior players can play together for years and still the band will sound mediocre; obviously, that's not the case with either SE or KOB. The cohesion on KOB is exemplary. That's not to say that on SE it's bad or less than excellent; simply that it's not quite on the same exalted level. The other point that I think is getting lost is that KOB, for better or worse, is a concept album. That alone puts it in a different category; doesn't make it better or worse, but makes a comparison almost pointless. IMO, better (more meaningful) comparisons would have been: " how does KOB compare to "Milestones" for instance which are both more closely related. Really, what is the point of making a case for why one really good apple is better than a really good pear? I encourage you to redead my comments in a different light as you will find that we really don't disagree nearly as much as it may seem at first. BTW, this is MY favorite of all Miles' bands (Shorter, Hancock, Carter, Williams): https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLB9B9936580F9EE94&v=cet79P4LN4s |
You may try, and I commend you for trying; but, you often come across as being all over the place. Are we talking about music or are we talking about audiophiles? In the context of this discussion, who cares about audiophiles. Remember, this all started as a result of an article claiming to explain why KOB was so great and so popular. Not, popular among audiophiles, but simply popular. Are you telling us that the millions of owners of a copy of KOB own $240K systems? It's popular to that degree because it was an important and very good recording. It may not be the best but it is undeniably a great one all things considered. Now, enough of the nonsense; let's talk music. I presented specific musical examples of why KOB and SE both have merit and downsides. "I like it better" doesn't cut it. Tell me, with specific examples, why what I said is not true. Both KOB and SE are excellent records. Tell me why that is not true. Dig a little deeper. |
O-10, from the same period and if someone forced me at gunpoint to pick my favorite Miles record this would be it. Amazing rhythm section; Tony Williams kills and Wayne Shorter is on fire. As far as I am concerned this is some of the very best jazz on record. Highly recommended/ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7vWdTXy80Lk&list=PLCB9AD592FDC73455 |
Great comments Acman3; and so true. Actually, I would put that figure even lower; unfortunately. I commend you for, in becoming "more experienced", gaining a higher level of understanding (hearing). It's unfortunate that so many, even very active listeners, have so little interest in learning to hear. |
|
****Yes, Mozart was unbelievably talented; but he worked damn hard at his craft, and THAT is why his music is so great****
"People err who think my art comes easily to me. I assure you, dear friend, nobody has devoted so much time and thought to compositions as I. There is not a famous master whose music I have not industriously studied through many times." - WA Mozart |
Learsfool, thanks for chiming in re the musician/ audiophile. You are, of course, correct. |
Schubert, I completely agree about Schubert; no other explanation for possessing a gift such as his was. Same can be said of Mozart and there is no dispute about that. It's difficult to understand what goes on in mind of such incredible ability. I suspect that his comment meant that as prodigious and accelerated as his output was, so was his ability to work at and hone his craft. |
O-10, let's put is this way:
I have, as LeArsfool reminded us, pointed out that, as a percentage of the population of musicians, there are many more musicians who are audiophiles than there are audiophiles in the general population. Additionally, and you will simply have to take my word for this: the average musician (jazz or otherwise) has infinitely better sound playback equipment than the average non-musician; even the average non-musician who can afford to be an audiophile. |
http://jazztimes.com/articles/17407-the-making-of-a-jazz-audiophileAlong with the mentioned: Keith Jarret Billy Drummond Steve Khun Carla Bley and others, I would like to add: Bob Mintzer Mike Migliore Chick Corea Christian McBride Ted Nash Jim Pugh Gary Smulyan Lawrence Feldman Larry Carlton Fred Hersch Randy Brecker I could go on, but I think I made my point. |
|
When CTI came on the scene, there were some "purists" that accused the artists on the CTI catalog of "selling out"; some of the jazz was a little "lite", but some was really funky and really good. For me, Stanley Turrentine was probably the only (well, Freddie Hubbard also) whose CTI releases were consistently great; even the "lighter" ones. Another fave; along with "Sugar" (Eric Gale kills): https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL69bb8FmwkGCFcej-Mxd-nQXPiwrI3OBg&v=JTBRiyB4KpU |
|
****Why this untruth is so widespread here despite being contradicted by every actual musician on this board is a continuing mystery to me, and a fascinating one. ****
A couple of related untruths are the idea that musicians (any genre) don't listen to recorded music and that most audiophiles don't really care about music; nothing could be further from the truth. Musicians listen to a lot of recorded music; and, while some audiophiles (equipment geeks) are, in fact, clueless about music, most that I have known are music lovers.
One of the reasons that these ideas get promulgated is, ironically, the emotional power of the very music they love which sometimes keeps many avid listeners from being able to see the middle ground (the gray) of so many of these issues. It can cause a tendency to want things to be entirely one way or the other; to make things the "best" or the "worst"; to become very polarized and overreact when a criticism is expressed by someone about a particular favorite recording. The KOB/SE debate was a perfect example of this. Two of the acknowledged greatest jazz recordings; yet, so much arguing about which was "better" when the dissenting voice (me) made it very clear from the start that both were great, but only in one or two specific areas was one considered somewhat better than the other while never declaring one as superior overall. Unfortunately, when hearing one listener say that X drummer sounds a little sloppy compared to Y drummer, instead of listening to the two examples and trying to hear what is being said, the focus becomes: "oh, he thinks X drummer is no good" and the fact that there are musically important stylistic differences between the two is missed.
The strong emotional response that music can have in a listener causes a tendency to "see" artists as dealing only with the emotional realm and to resist the idea that essential elements for artists to be able to reach that emotional realm and express their artistic vision are things that listeners sometimes perceive as very mundane and unemotional: study, practice or listening to recordings; things that can be misconstrued as not being in keeping with the mistaken idea that creativity is only the result of the calling of the artist's "muse". Most listeners would be amazed and their heads would spin at how much "technical" speak goes on in musicians' conversations (yes, even jazz musicians), wether it be about equipment, practice techniques, recordings that they are studying and analyzing, as well as musical issues at a level of subtlety that may seem incomprehensible. Music lovers tend to want their favorite artists to be "above the fray" of the mundane; truth is, they are people too. |
O-10, " mid-twenties"? I was sure you were at least 50; attitude of an "old soul". |
|
Terrific explanations from Learsfool; thanks.
****Once he comes out of his latest 'Pouting' episode****
Rok2id, pay close attention now. I realize that understanding things that go beyond surface level are not always your forte; and, I do feel flattered that my three day absence from this thread causes you concern. But, really, was that comment necessary? I hope that you are able to see that in order to avoid (if that is what you want) the silly bickering that you often bring to the table, that it is this kind of passive aggression that puts things on the wrong track. All together now..... ha ha ha ha.
O-10, will check back with some comments re your postings.
Robsker, thanks for the heads up. Randy Sandke is a terrific traditional jazz player out of the Bix Beiderbeck tradition. I second the recommendation.
Cheers all. |
|
|
Excellent observation re big bands and absolutely true. It's hard to imagine the sound of the Thad Jones/ Mel Lewis big band originating in LA; or that of the Terry Gibbs big band in NY. |
****In the case of East Coast, West Coast, don't get locked down to geographical area; while Lennie Tristano's studio was in New York, the music was strictly "West Coast".****
Precisely why I prefer to (and did) refer to the style as "cool school" not West Coast; really interchangeable.
Alexatpos, Brew Moore. Nice! Very soulful player out of the Lester Young school. Love his tone. |
|
O-10, the answer to the question "who is the greatest jazz composer?", as you correctly point out, should be approached from a historical perspective; and, like the essence of jazz itself, will not be entirely devoid of, at least, a certain amount of subjectivity. This question smacks of the "KOB vs SE" debate. Is one the greatest because we happen to prefer the music on one or the other; or, is it the greatest because, in spite of our preference for one music or the other, the work had the most impact and influence in shaping the direction of the music as a whole (historical perspective). In the case of "KOB vs SE", if we remove the tendency to disqualify it because it HAPPENS to also be (God forbid!) an audiophile favorite, there is no question that KOB had infinitely more impact on the state of jazz than SE did. There is no question that both Ellington and Mingus were great jazz composers (probably the two greatest); and both extremely influential. Interestingly, in spite of the tendency in some camps to both promote the idea that the "great unwashed" dictate what is good or not, and then conveniently abandon this agenda when it suits, I think that in this question we have a fine example of when the "unwashed masses" get it right: Ellington reigns supreme! Ask the average music listener (even the average citizen) who Ellington was and who Mingus was. I think the results of the survey would be pretty obvious. The average person might even be able to name an Ellington tune. A Mingus tune? Unlikely. Ellington was not only a great composer whose compositions (along with Strayhorn) have become "standards" (there's that pesky word again), he was a key influence in the development of Big Band writing which shaped an entire era, was a brilliant orchestrator who pioneered the idea of writing with the individual players' sound and style (an idea used later by Mingus); he also excelled at symphonic, gospel and soundtrack writing. In spite of all his excellence and influence, Mingus did not have such a broad scope as a musician nor composer. I think it can fairly be said that had there been no Ellington, jazz would not be quite the same today. When one considers the developmental timelines of the music during which both Duke and Mingus were active one has to wonder wether the same can be said of Mingus to the same extent. Mingus is often referred to as "the heir apparent to Ellington" and I think that pretty much sums it up. Now, for a more subtle and potentially interesting perspective via the thoughts of Mingus himself: http://mingusmingusmingus.com/mingus/what-is-a-jazz-composerAnd on Ellington: http://www.npr.org/2008/11/19/97193567/duke-ellington-the-composer-pt-1 |
Amazing isn't it, how the silence can be deafening sometimes? |
BTW, anyone have any thoughts on the Mingus/Ellington links that I posted? Curious. |
Great clip, Acman3! Charlie Haden will be sorely missed. Fantastic example of spontaneous counterpoint by the two horn players. Chris Potter is probably the hottest young tenor player right now. To my ears he strikes a nice balance between the typical (and ubiquitous) post-Coltrane/Brecker sensibility and a more traditional tenor tone concept. https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=vPivKtpmvZE |
Alexatpos, I enjoyed the Iturralde clip; thanks for sharing. Interesting player. I have heard his very nice clarinet playing previously, but not his saxophone playing. His rather unusual tenor sound reminds me of Don Menza (West Coast). https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=Mk0nLtLpfiYBTW, while I was not able to download the Mayall clip, that record is a blast from the past for me. One of the first "jazz"/blues (non-r&r) records that I bought back in high school |
