Just some thoughts on recent posts: O-10, glad you enjoyed the links. No debate necessary, but commentary always welcomed. Rok: ****What is a Coach, and who is this guy?**** Valerie Ponomarev is one one of the most highly regarded living jazz trumpet players; Russian and out of the Lee Morgan "school". The guy can play! A coach is simply a teacher. "Coach" is used in the Arts as a bow to the assumption that the performer(s) involved are already at a pretty high level of proficiency. To put matters into a certain perspective: when Phil Woods attended Julliard he had to major on clarinet. There was no saxophone major; never mind a jazz major. https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=7jaf_0m5Jw4****Mingus is the best Jazz composer ever!(Small Group)**** Probably. ****Ellington is the best composer of the 20th century**** Jazz? Probably. Any genre? Doubtful. ****If I remember correctly, Mingus did not mention Ellington in his tome. Interesting.**** Interesting indeed. Not surprising. Like most great artists, he had a huge ego. Not surprising that he would not mention the composer that he was referred to as "heir apparent" of. ****Tunes include: Fables of Faubus( I wonder who remembers Faubus), Sophisticated Lady, and Parkeriana(dedicated to Bird).**** All the mention that matters, I think. ****To be fair, some of these artist do seem to resist having their music called Jazz. Maybe we should listen to them.**** I pointed this out about 2000 posts ago. ****I still think he was a hell of a musician. Just not the man I thought he was.**** Many of our musical idols were highly flawed individuals. Personally, I think it is a good thing to recognize this and to take a bit of the edge off of our adulation; I think it puts their work in a better, more honest, and more "musical" perspective. Great observation re Dolphy. Tremendous range, and fantastic (if unusual) style. |
I am all for "political truth". Some would correctly say that discussion of politics in an audio forum is inappropriate and not wise. The role and impact of politics in music is undeniable and well documented; so, to discuss politics in this sub-forum about music seems perfectly appropriate to me. Having said that, I think it would be wise to be careful about moral relativism re this subject. IMO, to compare the Japanese internment, as horrible and inexcusable as it was, to the concentration camps that other countries instituted is not reasonable. |
|
****No one would choose the noise makers. So, If Ellington is not the best, it's between the last three on the list. And it's close!****
Rok, we are all entitled to our opinions and to have favorites; but, to proclaim a "best" as a truth outside the scope of personal preference without being truly comprehensive is pointless. To omit Bejamin Britten, Richard Strauss (one of Mingus' faces), Bela Bartok, Maurice Ravel, Sergei Rachmaninov, Aaron Copland, Francis Poulenc and others while including Glass belies a limited understanding of the subject; sorry. Glad to see Gershwin on your list, 'though. Very underrated as a serious composer; perhaps due to the wonderful accessibility and tunefulness of his music. |
****How else do you expect us Unwashed to learn anything?? :)****
Well, at least you have a sense of humor about it all. Seriously, all this demonstrates the futility of trying to establish a "best". Wether it's a player, composer, recording etc., there will be always be a handful that stand above the rest as pillars of excellence. In the arts, by it's very definition, individuality is a key ingredient of excellence. So, how does one designate a "best" when there is so much individuality as part of the mix? Not possible. One can streamline the list based on level of excellence along with level of influence and then really separate the men from the boys. Re the BBC list:
First if all, I thought it was a pretty good, if incomplete, list. Sorry to hear that you had appropriated it as your own; tsk, tsk, tsk! I was impressed that you had included Gershwin. But, you copied it and left out Britten! That name alone makes the list much more authoritative; he was a true giant. The inclusion of Boulez is probably a good one. Cage and Glass? As two of the greatest? No way! Influential? Certainly; and, very. But, what is "great"? Is great someone who is highly individualistic but who's grasp of so much of what constitutes composition pales in comparison to other composers? Like orchestration skill at the highest level with a thorough grasp of, not only modern techniques, but those of the great composers from the past; while having an individualistic vision. Seems to me that the title "great" should be reserved for the very few that had it all.
"If you feel empathy for his personal outlook, you naturally feel him musically more than some other environ-mental and musical opposite
who is, in a way. beyond you." - Charles Mingus
|
****The question I have is this: Does this audience in Switzerland know who wrote this tune?? Do they think it's an original of this so-called big band?
That's the danger of this type of thing. Young folks will think Jazz started the day they first heard Jazz. They might even think wow, what a tune, and have never heard Dizzy play it. Food for thought.****
What danger? And why "danger"? While I disagree with the mindset that anyone would think that it all started when they first heard it, why is it not simply a good thing that they hear it at all? That would be the beginning of the education. It has to start somewhere; no? I think that as much of a "danger" is dogmatism and the kind of musical fascism that dictates that the music cannot be an extension of the past, with new relevance and new relevant players (not simply "noise makers") and composers.
BTW, while I was not there (obviously) I would bet my Columbia 6Eye KOB, that before Ponomarev counted off the tune that night in Switzerland, the audience heard something like this:
"And now, a tune by one of the greatest jazz musicians of all time: "ANIT", by the great Dizzy Gillespie; arranged by Benny Golson"
Maybe we shouldn't worry so much about the young folks. |
Sorry to hear the news, Acman3. Nice clip. Very West Coast and reminiscent of some of the "Peter Gunn" Mancini charts. Thanks. |
****I consider myself as individual, so I cant answer your generalizations about European feelings toward jazz.Like I said, that might be an interesting topic, but I guess for that is required more than an opinion****
Alexatpos, I find your style and approach to discussing music (and, I suspect, any subject) refreshing and even-keeled. Actually, it goes hand in hand with what you pointed out about jazz audiences in Europe vs America. I think your observations are correct. I have always felt that the reason that those differences exist have mainly to do with the fact that the US is a very young country compared to most countries in Europe which have had rich cultural and art traditions for many hundreds of years longer than the US. Europeans have histories going back to a time when great artists and artistry were revered and, as you said, to have knowledge in this area was a sign of education. Thanks for the links. |
O-10, agree about Jefferson. Love that Horace Silver tune "Filthy MacNasty". And what a great trumpet solo. After James Moody's exuberance everything relaxes with a beautifully tasty solo by someone who, as much as anybody, deserves the title of "most sadly unrecognized". Dave Burns was a great bebopper who few have even heard about. http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=5ebeHafmsDA |
Nice! Beautiful playing by Burns. Hint of a Lee Morgan influence and I love it when a player starts a solo without any ambiguity as he does at 1:50; a simple three note statement, concise and to the point as if saying "check this out". Amazing how players of this caliber are forgotten sometimes. Thanks! |
Alexatpos,
Very nice post. Dupree Bolton is a new one to me. Good player with a rather fiery musical vibe. Gildo Mahones I know from his work with Lambert, Hendricks and Ross. Another solid player who I believe is still active. Thanks for the contributions. |
Jazzbird (great handle), for that story alone I will have to check out the book. What TV viewers don't always realize is that sometimes the craziest, funniest and most interesting things happen behind the scenes, off- air. |
Acman3, fantastic clips! Why some insist that jazz needs saving is beyond me. There is an entire crop of young players pushing the boundaries while keeping the connection to the past and it augers well for the future of the music. At the very least it's proof that something is in the works and we will look back and see this as important transition period. Personally, I look forward to what is around the corner. Thanks for the clips. |
Fantastic post, Learsfool. Your comments re Wagner and his amazing influence on the arts, not just music, are spot on. Thank you. |
|
Schubert, don't short change yourself; you are an astute listener. When I said that jazz doesn't need saving I meant it as a counter to the mistaken idea that quality jazz is not being produced by new young musicians; that the quality is dying. There will always be great new players and, as you point out the, players that are better than ever in some ways. The music will, of course, continue to evolve style-wise as it always has. The sad state of the size of audiences for jazz and higher art in general is a different matter. However, I don't agree that the audiences are ever-declining. There are many indications that, at the very least, the numbers have stabilized and there has actually been an increase over the last few years as well as other signs that are reason to feel positive about the future. Some interesting reading re the data: http://www.jazzartsgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/JAITicketBuyerStudy_ExecutiveSummary.pdfhttp://arts.gov/sites/default/files/NEA-Research-Report-31.pdf |
Schubert, while I don't agree that Frank Sinatra was a bad joke, I don't think you are delusional nor full of it. I never cared much for Sinatra's musical persona but recognize why he is considered so great by so many. He had a very straightforward delivery of a song with little embellishment or vocal affectations and a fantastic sense of rhythm. I have always preferred the young Sinatra from the '40's, before his voice got so husky and "masculine"; and before his Vegas "baby" and "broads" persona took over along with the sense that he was doing the listener a favor by letting him/her hear him sing. This is clearly a subjective reaction, but it has been there for me in most of what he did from the '50s forward. I often found his singing simply joyless; unlike a singer like Tony Bennett or Mel Torme. Sinatra and Torme were two totally different types of singers, and while I would never say that Torme was "better" than Sinatra I am surprised that Learsfool considers him only a pleasant voice. Compared to singers of that generation, Torme could swing his ass off and was a true jazz singer who could scat like no other with the exception of Ella. I definitely understand your reaction to both Sinatra and Torme. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4vZlyfa28iQ |
As with most things of great value, music, the artists and their personalities can be very complicated; how and if that personality is reflected in the performance is equally complicated. With some artists their work is an open window into their personality while with some their work is paradoxically different. Coltrane was a deeply spiritual individual and this was clearly projected in his playing. Louis Armstrong was always jovial as an individual and I can think of no other player that could more easily put a smile on one's face by the way he played. Yet, you have a beautiful player like Stan Getz who was known to be a very difficult and abrasive individual and some would say a jerk; yet, his playing could be so gentle.
I think Sinatra was one of those performers whose personality was clearly reflected in their performance. Alexatpos, I also think that a distinction needs to be made between a difficult and unpleasant personality and a troubled one. You are correct, many great artists were/are troubled individuals. Some would say that is the reason they need to perform; as an outlet for their troubles. But a troubled personality is not necessarily an unpleasant one and just as we each react differently to a given performer's musical style, we each react differently to an individual's personality traits.
Schubert made what, at first, seemed like a pretty wild comparison: Mel Torme compared to a Mozart concerto; and, earlier, his dislike of Sinatra with a reference to Wagner. They are actually pretty apt comparisons and give me an insight into how he listens to music. Generalizations to be sure, and obvious issues of relative greatness aside, the music of Mozart can be characterized as uplifting, buoyant and lively and generally easy to listen to. I think that Mel Torme's singing style could easily be characterized the same way. Wagner was known to be an extremely controlling individual and perfectionist with a strong sense of self-importance; Sinatra has been often described the same way. I think that, wether we realize it or not, when we don't like an artist or his music we are sometimes reacting to that artist's individual persona. |
Off the top of one's head is good; like first impressions. |
|
Not released until 1960, but recorded mostly in 1959, Coltrane's "Giant Steps" would change everything |
****Incredible album.....**** Yup! The tune "Giant Steps" would literally be a giant step for improvisers on all instruments; an amazing test of a player's ability to make music over an incredibly complex chord progression like never seen before. Even the great Tommy Flanagan struggles with the changes when he solos. He is tentative from the very beginning and one gets the feeling that he is saying "what the f&%k?", and by 3:30 simply gives up and just comps them. Hard to say wether they planned it this way, but Coltrane then takes over again like the phenom he was and finishes what should have been Flanagan's solo. Amazing stuff! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xr0Tfng9SP0 |
|
I'm game. Good idea; if there is interest. |
|
You're welcome. Recorded in 1961 and close to the magic year 1959; an amazing time for jazz. 1961 was also the year that Oliver Nelson's "Blues And The Abstract Truth" was recorded. It's interesting to note how much Hubbard's solo on "Society Red" sounds like his solo on "Stolen Moments" from "BATAT" as an indication of where he was at in his development as an improviser. Dexter was at his peak and sounds incredible. Glad you liked it. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RbaGDDbpcQ4 |
|
pjw, there are three Brubeck brothers. I believe two are currently part of a regular working quartet and all three played and recorded with their father together and separately on various projects. https://youtu.be/1yw12V2KK0YI like Roberta Gambarini. I see (hear) no reason that Hank Jones’ praise would not be genuine. She has a wide ranging and interesting voice a little reminiscent of a young Carmen McRae in character and with a bit of a “cabaret” vibe. Thanks for the clips. I particularly liked the clips with Hank Jones; what a classy piano player! This is the only recording of hers that I was familiar with (via a singer/friend). Interesting recording with less obvious emphasis on Jazz: https://youtu.be/bDRP5pccL9wBtw, a propos our OP’s recent mention of the bass clarinet as a favorite instrument, this rendition of a Ravel Classical piece features the contrabass clarinet, a beast of an instrument: https://youtu.be/AFlp-eEu6mY |
Re Branford and "My new closing argument":
****However, sometimes the crap they say is so breathtakingly stupid, something has to be said in rebuttal. Hence the tangents····**** - Rok
The level of arrogance and stupidity shown by Branford in that article would be breathtaking were it not for the knowledge that this is the same Branford that has ridden the wave started by his brother Wynton. I think Branford is a better jazz player than Wynton, but not nearly good enough to make him, as Rok suggested, "darling of the thread". I don't particularly care for Wynton's jazz playing, but acknowledge that he is a force of nature with his amazing talent as an instrumentalist, educator and advocate for jazz. When the Marsalis brothers came on the scene, it was obvious who the star was going to be. Wynton was serious and would never pepper his language with obscenities the way Branford does:
"There's only twelve fucking notes"
One of the most idiotic statements that I have heard in a while and surprising even for him, a musician that in spite of a fair mount of talent is a generic player nonetheless. He even copied his brother in the "Look, I can play Classical music too" wave. He is, unlike his brother, a mediocre classical player. This is the same Branford who, during his stint with Sting's (!?!?!) band decided he wanted to sub in the pit of Sting's newly opened Broadway show and was too arrogant to do what is normal and required (sit through the show and watch/listen to the regular player play the part), and instead went in cold and, as musicians like to say, stepped on his dick and was told by the producers to not come back. Branford is a good player, but only good and he is an opportunist and does not have nearly the gravitas and importance in the music world that his brother has. So, bottom line, I think he is full of it with the comments he made in that article. I would have much to say as far as a more substantive rebuttal, but the first reader's comment accompanying the article says it about as well as I ever could:
---------------------------------
%%%% Everything that I dislike about Branford and his extraordinarily generic sounding recordings can be summed up in his own quote:
" I mean, man, there's 12 fucking notes. What's going to be new?"
" I mean, man, there's only so many colors. What's going to be new?" - Vincent Van Gogh, on why he abandoned painting 'Starry Night'
" I mean, man, there's only so many shapes. What's going to be new?" - Pablo Picasso, on choosing not to finish 'Guernica'
" I mean, man, there's only so many words. What's going to be new?" - James Joyce, on scrapping 'Ulysses'.
What's going to be new? Many things... and none of them created by someone who sees nothing but a closed system.
Branford has been singing the "there are only 12 fucking notes" line for so long that he has convinced himself. If he would continue with his search, he would find out it is no longer true. Bur he already has the answers so why bother looking. But to each their own. But where I have a problem in this shortsightedness is in how it can influence the young minds of young students and artists and stifle their growth. Art isn't anymore the notes than it is the instrument, the tones, the colors, the paint brushes or anything else under the sun. Art is the voice of the soul of the individual artist. Though important, these other singular things are technical matters that only give you the tools in which to express your soul. If you can't express ithat level of depth, all of these things are not going to help you. You'll just learn the tools and learn them well. To lump it all together would be diminishing the work of our greatest artists. And if you are going to concentrate on the 12 notes, then try this experiment. Gather 50 people and place them in a room. Take a tape recorder and then walk by each person and ask them to repeat, "There are only 12 fucking notes" and record each person. Now take the recorder and place it at the front of the room and play the 50 voices back and ask everyone how many various unique voices they hear. How many? Of course you can say, "The differences are not notes but various tones and or colors of the voices." Ok, but doesn't that count? If it does, then why would you focus on 12 notes when creating? What about the other aspects? It's simple, right? But when it comes to art you have to take it another step futher. At the foundation of each person is something that is incredibly unique that makes them who they are. However, not everyone is in touch with that something. In fact, very few. Artists are able to rediscover who they are and create from that place but not many can. Now you can think that's a bunch of hogwash and it's only one way of explaining it and I certainly will not say it's the best way. %%%% |
|
|
|
Acman3:the voice of reason; even with no words at all. |
|
Something is up with my links. They were posted using my wife's Kindle and I don't seem to be able access them on my IPad. Please let me know if they don't work. Thanks. |
O-10, a lot to comment re your latest post. I don't understand what you mean by the recent posts by Acman3 and I sounding like music from the 50s and 60s; especially Acman3's. Take the recent Woody Shaw clips that I don't think received any commentary (perhaps that is an example of what you mean). Shaw was a player whose style sounds nothing like the players from the 50s and 60s. Please clarify.
****Frogman, and some others seem to think or feel that musicians who go to the best schools, and progress to the point where they have developed the highest skill level on their chosen instrument, can exceed the jazz made by the giants of the 50's and 60's; but I don't believe they can.****
I am afraid that is a gross mischaracterization of what I have said about the matter. I have never said anything about about new players "exceeding" the greats of from the 50s and 60s. My stance is and has always been that there are players today that have BUILT UPON the musical legacy of greats. Recent comments by me related to (I believe) Dave Liebman and Michael Brecker who built upon Coltrane's legacy and, yes, in some ways I guess one could say "exceeded" what was considered possible in improvisation during the 50s and 60s. There is nothing novel about this idea. It is the nature of the music (constant evolution) and not understanding this points to what Chazro pointed out: the misunderstanding, or, more accurately, lack of understanding of modern jazz; and, I would add, music in general. Re "schools":
This subject keeps coming up. I believe the issue is not that I have ever said that recent players who have attended schools are superior jazz players BECAUSE they have attended schools; it would absurd to suggest that, and again, a mischaracterization as I never suggested that. What I have pointed out is there are some great players who happen to have attended schools and are worth listening to. There is a vibrant jazz education system that is producing some really great players. The real issue re this subject is the apparent bias in your and others' comments against players who HAVE attended schools. IOW, BECAUSE they have attended schools they are somehow necessarily inferior to the "street schooled" players; an absurd and ill informed idea. Re "objective reality":
This one's a tough one. I am not sure how to address this one except that you yourself, and perhaps ironically, made the case for me. First with your comment:
****While that seems illogical, music is not a science with a mathematical preciseness, it's a lot more subjective than objective;****
Precisely. Well, at least you are allowing room for an objective reality, which was really what I was trying to say. Yes, at the end of the day, if a given listener likes something that another one does not, there's not much that can be said. However, there is actually a well known relationship between mathematics and its "preciseness" and music; and that's a fact. As concerns this discussion what I mean is this:
Your recent Billy Bang post. Apparently you like it. I think that, at best, it's pleasant with a reasonably idiomatic feeling for an ethnic tune such as that. Ask most Cubans how they feel about that rendition of "Chan Chan" and they will tell you that it's barely mediocre. Is that not a reality of sorts? Now, Billy Bang's playing. I realize there may be something in his playing that resonates with you. I hear improvisation that is almost embarrassing with extremely rudimentary violin playing which is horribly out of tune. I assure you that as far as the violin playing goes that would be the reaction of the vast majority of violin players. Is that not also a reality of sorts? A person can insist that 2+2=5 till he's blue in the face, but that does not make it right.
Regards. |
****There is no truth on the human level without a marriage of emotion and intellect.****
Talk about "restoring order"! Succinct and entirely correct.
Mapman, thanks; per Schubert's comment. |
I think you're going in the wrong direction. |
Great to see new contributors/participants; welcome all and I look forward to your clips. O-10, not sure I am necessarily looking for a debate, although, as you know, I don't shy away from one; and while Rok's silence is sometimes deafening, he makes up for it when he makes HIS noise :-) I also appreciate Acman3's economy of words (kind of like later Wayne Shorter), I like how he gets his point across with music clips only. I sense the thread is at a Milestone(s) of sorts (pun intended) and we should capitalize on that. Rok, while I wouldn't call that list and commentary definitive I think the author makes some good points and his list of twenty is very very good imo. I appreciate your evenhandedness and candor in your own comments;but I disagree that the 70s/80's was a sterile period in jazz, in fact I think it was, as well as being transitional (isn't it always transitional? its the nature of the music, its always evolving), very exciting. I think you are mellowing :-) The author makes two points that I believe I made in recent posts: ****the predujices disappear the deeper one gets into something**** I wrote: ****We move way too quickly through an era and dont dig deep enough. I think that is why some of the stereotypes about genres hang us up**** I think that there may be, as the author points out, a misconception or stereotype about what music from that era (70s) is about. It is not simply the kind of fusion exemplified by Gato, Sanborn and others. This music was mostly very accesible in as much as it was tuneful or melodic in a traditional way and very pleasant to listen to, but not very adventurous harmonically or rhythmically. There was also a lot of music (like the Woody Shaw clips show) that is a more direct extension of the hard bop style that gets a lot of play in this thread; almost all acoustic and unquestionably Jazz. Then, there was the electric stuff that went to totally new places. Frankly, I am taken aback by the relegation of something like "Sly" by Herbie's "Headhunters" to a comparion to bellbottoms because of the "funk" stereotype. No problem with not liking something, but to not appreciate the incredible level of inventive improvisation and musical interaction (hallmarks of good jazz) that the band shows in that track leaves me almost speechless. Another favorite from the 70s. Sterile? Really?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1drMpkjM1DA |
O-10, IPad arrived just one hour ago. I will repost. |
Jazz has been called "America's Classical Music". Well, there you have it; as far as the fundamentals of music making go, there are far more similarities than differences. THAT is why I have been beating the drum about learning some fundamentals and building blocks of music. Still, there are obviously important differences.
Learsfool does a great job in his last post. A couple of further comments about his excellent points in response to Rok:
First of all, the idea that classical musicians play the same thing over and over again is nonsense. Yes, orchestras sometimes play the "warhorses" over and over again, but they also play a lot of new works; not to mention that there is a HUGE amount of lesser known (and unknown) works by the great composers that is programmed on a regular basis. Just last night I was part of a remarkable performance of a remarkable opera "Mona Lisa" (about the subject of the painting), composed in 1913 by Max Von Schilling. A beautiful work easily on a par with some of Richard Strauss' operas that received 1200 (!) performances during the years before WW1 and, incredibly, simply disappeared from the consciousness of the music world until last night's conductor found and purchased ($2 !) a score in a bookstore in Vienna. There are countless works that have met that fate.
Rok, you like the blues; or as the SNL character used to say: "You lika de blues". I lika de blues. Most of the jazz tunes that you post are based on the twelve bar blues form. To expound of Learsfool's excellent comments:
For the improviser, the "meat" of a jazz tune is not "the tune" (the melody), it is it's harmonic underpinnings; the chord progression. That is what the jazz player uses as his template (great term by Learsfool) for his improvisations, with, of course, references to the melody. The melody is often relatively simple, although there are tunes that are far more sophisticated both methodically and sophisticated. I would wager that close to half (or more) of all the tunes that you have posted use the same template of the twelve bar blues or some slight variation of that. Another common and standard chord progression is "Indiana changes" the harmonic underpinning of the tune "Back Home In Indiana" and "stolen" and used for many tunes, from Bird's "Donna Lee" to "The Flinstones" Theme. Have you any idea how many times the jazz player plays "the same " tune over and over again? They all had their "signature" tunes and their "set list". The point is, that miraculous as what a top improviser does is, it is not quite as mysterious and miraculous, as far as the challenges posed the player, compared to what a classical musician does when interpreting a classical work at the level heard in a top orchestra. There is a reason that jazz players almost always go and take lessons from top classical players when they want to learn to be better instrumentalists. There is no point in trying to make one discipline out to be "better" or "harder" than another; it's simply not the case. THEY ARE EACH HARDER IN DIFFERENT WAYS. The jazz player's challenge is in the spontaneous creation of music to fit a pre-established or familiar template. Analogy using your preferred twelve bar blues:
Imagine twelve people in a room standing in a circle. The catch is that each of them speak a different language (different chord change). Now, the challenge is to run around that circle a few times while making up a story about what O-10 would REALLY like to do to Pannonica, and every time you go past one of those people you have to switch to that person's language in a way that the story ends up being coherent and makes sense. There is a lot of latitude because if your voice cracks or you burp, or you sound out of breath while you speak, the message still gets across. Some of those people speak the same language which makes it a little easier; but hopefully you get the point. I think everyone would agree that it's a daunting task. The often mentioned and great Lee Morgan missed a note here and there, cracked a note here and there, and while playing with that amazing swagger of his was not perfectly in tune all the time.
The classical player from a top ensemble cannot falter, burp, fart, sound out of breath, or let his voice crack while he, instead of having to make up a great story about O-10, has to read the text of a familiar novel. He has to read it with absolutely perfect diction, rhythm, intelligibility and in the case of a solo artist, solo line in an orchestra, or section soli make it SOUND (and this is a point that is often missed) with the musical personality of the individual soloist or section leader within the confines of what the particular piece demands. The orchestral player who lets tiny little imperfections creep into his solo (or ensemble) lines with the frequency that even great jazz players do would not have his job for very long. Again, this is not because they are "better" musicians than jazz player's; it's that the demands are different.
Fess up, O-10 :-) |
Typo alert:
****both methodically and sophisticated**** should be:
melodically and harmonically.
Hate this spellchecker. |
Rok, I think that as suggested recently, you really must be a troll; I don't think it's possible to be able to read and write (sort of) and be such an idiot. Anything positive or insightful to contribute? |
Shit. Thanks for the fix. My understanding of this computer stuff is marginal. Well at least the Wayne Shorter can be downloaded (the cream always rises to the top).
VTA, anyone? |
|
Actually, it most certainly has; several times. But I'm glad you understand. |
|
Unbelievable! 86 yrs old and still playing like that; I'll be glad if I can still pick my nose at 86. Nice clip. |
I referred to Q Jones in the past tense a couple of times; obviously those were typos he is still with us and doing great work. |
|
