Here's some of mine, in roughly alphabetical order:
Louis Armstrong - Hot Five, Hot Seven
John Coltrane - Giant Steps, Blue Train
Miles Davis - Kind of Blue, Birth of the Cool
Bill Evans - Waltz for Debby, Sunday at the Village Vanguard
Ella Fitzgerald - Ella in Rome: The Birthday Concert, also all the songbooks
Wynton Marsalis - Majesty of the Blues, also the Standard Time series
Oscar Peterson - Peterson 6 at Montreux, We Take Requests
The 40th birthday concert of Ellas's in Rome is one of her lesser known albums, but if you don't know it, I urge you to find it. She is absolutely fantastic on it, and Oscar Peterson sits in near the end as well. I list the Peterson 6 at Montreux album for the incredible miking on it. If your system images well and has a good soundstage, this album will really show that off. It was a Pablo release. Another group I would suggest for those who like fusion music would be Bela Fleck and the Flecktones. Fleck of course is the master of the banjo, and his bass player, Victor Wooten, is out of this world. Their debut album, Bela Fleck and the Flecktones, is probably still my favorite. |
Frogman, I understand your bowing out here completely, even though you are completely correct. Rok2id, please do not take offense, but you are demonstrating a fine example of that old phrase "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." There is no one on this board anywhere near as knowledgeable as Frogman in the subjects you have been trying to argue about with him.
That said, let's get back to enjoying the music. That's the most important thing. |
Hi Orpheus - that cover of Jaws is hilarious, I had never heard that before. |
Frogman, love your BS comment. I agree wholeheartedly that there is too much PC going on in the music world, especially in jazz, but also in classical. |
Don't know about first rate audio and video, but a first rate performance is Claudio Abbado's with the Berlin Philharmonic. They did the whole Beethoven cycle on DVD about 10 years ago now. A very good set. |
Victor Wooten is indeed an incredible electric bass player - the best I have ever heard, by quite a large margin. His work on all the Bela Fleck and the Flecktones stuff is great, too. Met him once, a very nice guy. Saw the Flecktones live in the early 90's, and Victor was a close friend of a friend. He came and sat in my friend's lap during the middle of the show (who was also a bass player, though mostly a classical one), started laying down a funky bass line in one hand, and then played a Paganini caprice in the other hand above it. Amazing. |
Rok - another thing I thought of on the person playing no instrument - it may be the third bassoon/contrabassoon player, who didn't happen to play on that particular piece, but is on stage because he played something else on that half of the program. His instrument is probably on a stand next to him. |
Frogman, I did not know that about the end of Hubbard's career. That's every brass player's worst nightmare. I really enjoy Hubbard's early stuff - brass players definitely know who he is and talk about him quite a bit. Lee Morgan is another one like that - you don't hear many casual jazz fans talk about him, but the brass players do. |
@Orpheus - I appreciate your passion for jazz. What I don't get is why you think I am having trouble "accepting" anything?? I was merely trying to explain to you the kind of work it takes to become a professional musician of any kind - my comments were in no way specific to classical music, and I am sorry if this was not clear. I will let Frogman's great answer stand - he writes much more clearly than I, that's for sure.
@Charles1dad - yes, some classical musicians do still improvise, though this is largely becoming a lost art in the classical world. Even well into the 19th century, almost all musicians had to develop some ability for it, but after that point, the incredible technical advances in both instruments and players brought about such specialization that the focus now is almost entirely on learning to play the instruments as well as possible. It also has to do with the sheer size of the "standard rep." There is so much music out there that the orchestral musician must know now that most feel there is no time to develop improvisational skills that they would probably never be called upon to use. This is a very sad thing, IMO.
That said, there are still many who do on a regular basis, though in a different way from the jazz musicians. They are mainly keyboardists - those who perform baroque music are the best example. A harpsichordist must do what is called "realizing" the figured bass. Basically, the composer has written down some figures (numbers) below the bass note that tells the performer what chord is required. It is entirely up to the performer how this chord is spaced, or voiced, and sometimes even the chord required is flexible. None of the rest of the part is written out, just a bass note and these "figures." So the harpsichordist is making up his entire part above the bass note, often elaborating it. Singers and instrumental soloists also often improvise ornamentation of their melodies in baroque music, as well, and there are many musicians very adept at this - much of the time, it is done on the spot, not written out beforehand. There are also still some soloists who improvise cadenzas on the spot in their concertos, but this is becoming more rare. Stephen Hough is one example. In undergrad, besides my horn performance major I also did a music theory major, and had to take a course in keyboard harmony, including learning to 'realize" figured bass. It was fun, though I have not done it since, and would have to brush up on it to try it - that's not something I could just sit down and do anymore.
This is not so different from what jazz musicians do as you might think. Once you know more about how jazz works, musically, much of the mystery goes away. To grossly simplify it, (and Frogman, feel free to jump in and help me out here) let's say you have a group getting together in a club to play a couple or three sets of standards, a typical one night club gig. Yes, they are improvising, but within a strict framework. There are standard harmonizations and forms for all of the standard tunes, which these players all know (a significant part of their study and practicing). If they haven't played a tune before that is going to be played that night, they also have resort to what are called "Fake Books," which list songs and their standard harmonizations, etc. This is how people who haven't played together before can still get together and sound as if they have - they can study up beforehand, and also talk through stuff beforehand and even on the spot if necessary. So they are actually working within a strict system, though it does not appear that way. This is why even a group that has played together a very long time and that takes requests sometimes has to refuse one, if they don't all know the obscure tune requested and don't have time to figure it out because of lack of a "book" on hand. I've witnessed that happen before in jazz clubs (and I will admit to have mischievously thrown out an obscure tune at my friends, in fun), though usually experienced players will have an almost encyclopedic knowledge of the tunes. Some groups that have been playing together for a very long time would be very hard to "stump" that way. Hope that somewhat answers your question, though Frogman could give a much better description, I'm sure. |
@Orpheus - that's a nice story. By the way, I have never heard of a repairman who was not a musician - not all of them ex-professionals, of course, but all of them played something at some point, at least in high school. They have to be able to play test the instrument, after all, to make sure it is good to go. Many of the top brass repair guys around the country, the ones who work on the very high quality instruments, are still playing a little bit professionally too, as free-lancers.
As far as your question about how people pick who they play with, well, one person in the group is always the leader, who takes care of the business end of the group and is the person dealing with whoever is hiring the musicians, whether it is a group that plays together all the time, or it is truly a pick-up group, and he/she hires musicians he is familiar with, or come highly recommended, if they are trying someone out for the first time. Or the employer may go through a professional contractor, who hires a pre-existing group, or puts one together. I have done a small amount of that type of contracting work, hiring a brass quintet for a church for Christmas and Easter gigs. It is alot of work, especially when the church only tells you a few weeks before, and you are scrambling to find people and having to hire people you don't know, because everyone you do is already working (usually we are hired for such holiday jobs months in advance). Wouldn't want to do that full-time, but I have done it here and there. One of the first things many young musicians will do who want to get their free-lance careers going is figure out who these big contractors are in their area, and send them their resumes, etc.
Hope that answers your question somewhat. |
@Rok2id - I would like emphasize something Frogman said - "I think that the point is how little most non-musican music lovers/audiophiles understand, how much there is to learn (if wanted), how much learning can improve appreciation, and that there is often a visceral aversion to learning more." First, it is sometimes very difficult for us musicians to speak to non-musicians about music without coming off as condescending, so we truly are always concerned about people thinking we are insulting their intelligence. We have all heard the phrase "music is a universal language," and this is true. However, it is a language that most people think they know much more about than they actually do (which recalls another famous saying, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"). You talk about the visceral part, and HOME, etc., and we are not saying you are wrong. What we are saying is that this is just the starting point for the musician. The more one understands about music intellectually, the more one appreciates what the musicians are doing (in any genre), and the deeper then becomes one's visceral appreciation as well. We know this to be true, yet this concept is often fiercely resisted by the music lover/audiophile who is non-musical. I would submit to you that if you took some time to take an ear-training course, or a fundamentals of music theory course, or even a music appreciation course at a local university or community college in your area, it would enrich your appreciation of the music you already love, and probably introduce you to whole new musical loves, far beyond what you could possibly imagine now. Folks like you and Orpheus and Charles1dad would be perfect students for such courses. Don't be afraid of it turning music into an academic exercise - in fact, I guarantee, assuming a decent teacher, that the very opposite will happen - your love and appreciation for music will deepen more than you think it possibly could. You would not regret it.
Another directly related personal story - for nine years, I taught French horn lessons very part-time (obviously my symphony job is my full-time job) at a major university. However, I did not teach the horn majors (another one of my colleagues did this) - I taught the non-majors, kids who had a band scholarship that required them to take the lessons, or kids who just wanted to keep playing but weren't necessarily in the music program otherwise. I have also had many adult students in my career, which frankly was not intended by me, but has become something of a specialty - two of my three current private students are adults. I was/am very much of a maverick as a teacher - I did of course help them play the horn much better, but I also insist on my students learning at least the rudiments of music theory, and I help to train their ears better (something my theory major in college taught me to do, by helping with music students who needed the extra help). I am in touch with many of my former students, all of whom thought it was a little strange at the time, but all of whom now greatly appreciate it, even though most of them don't actually play anymore, and almost all of them have continued it on their own. In every single case, it increased their love for music. One of them was actually a guy who also played some guitar, and I helped him learn some of the scales and chords he needed to learn to begin to learn to improvise - which was great fun for me, too, as it had been a long time since I had done any improvisation myself. Though we started it on the horn, he has since transferred it to his guitar playing, and last I heard he was in a jazz combo now in New Orleans, though I don't think it is his main job. Helping this type of student can often be as rewarding as helping the very most talented ones. |
Hi Rok2id - would learning more be a double-edged sword? As Frogman said, it might, however what you appreciate and enjoy, your enjoyment of will only increase. Also, you would never have to listen with the kind of critical ear that a professional must. Sometimes it is indeed extremely difficult for us to turn this off. But that is because it is our profession, our very lives. And also, if we are listening to a recording that is our favorite of a particular piece, the joy we get from it is that much greater. One exception is that most musicians do not like to listen to recordings of themselves, at least solo recordings, as it is almost impossible not to be extremely self-critical. I sometimes experience this when I listen to the recordings of all of my orchestra's concerts, which I must do because I am on the broadcast committee that decides which parts of which concerts will make up the radio broadcast of it. I must separate my own performance and that of my section and consider the performance of the group as a whole. So I have become somewhat more used to this than perhaps many other musicians would be.
What I really meant in my post was learning more about the music itself, to increase your enjoyment of it, as opposed to using that knowledge to judge performers. You will enjoy all ten of your Beethoven 7 recordings even more, if you learn more about how the piece is constructed. This is a totally separate thing from any one conductor/orchestra interpretation of the work.
One further comment I would have is that although I understand what you mean when you say going from classical to jazz is like going from the frying pan into the fire, I would say that I think what Frogman and I both have been trying to say is that these genres are not as far apart as most think. It is certainly much closer to it than say rap or techno or things like that. Many forms of jazz are much closer to classical than say rock as well. Jazz is certainly the only other genre of music that comes anywhere near having the harmonic variety that classical does, and melodic variety too, for that matter. |
Totally agree with Orpheus and Frogman's comments on Ella. Simply the best jazz vocalist for me, hands down. Knows exactly when to scat and when not to, and does it with the technique of an instrumentalist.
Speaking of singers with the technique of instrumentalists, if some of you jazz fans are curious about checking out some opera singers, try Marilyn Horne. Stunning technique, and an incredible range, and a wonderful voice, though for some of you her vibrato might take some getting used to. A great intro, which also happens to be an incredible recording as far as quality goes as well, is the recording she did of Carmen at the Met with Leonard Bernstein in the 70s on the Deutsche Gramophone label. It's a great intro to opera, and you will recognize a few of the tunes. For some sheer vocal pyrotechnics, check out some of her recordings of Rossini and Handel arias. |
Good to know you are OK Orpheus! |
Rok, if you live in the middle of Texas, you wouldn't have to go too far. There is a little bit happening in both Austin and San Antonio, but there is better happening in the DFW area, and some in Houston as well. Try Googling jazz clubs in all of those cities. |
Hi Rok - to answer your questions about reverb in concert halls is not necessarily easy. What I assume they mean by those particular numbers is how long a chord, say the last chord of a big piece, will ring in the hall AFTER the musicians have actually stopped playing it. Reverb is a very necessary element of a good hall - too little and it will sound dead, too much is also undesirable. There are way too many architectural/acoustical factors that go into it for me to feel comfortable discussing it in great detail.
Basically, though, the acousticians do have this down to a science, or think they do, anyway. In general, you want the sound to go out towards the audience, but you also want some of it coming back. And you also ideally want the musicians to be able to hear each other well across the stage, too. There are some great halls where it sounds amazing in the audience chamber, yet the musicians have a hard time hearing across the stage. There are also some that sound great in the audience chamber, but too much noise also comes back from there to the stage. There are few that get everything absolutely right, and these are not necessarily the relatively newer ones. Symphony Hall in Boston is definitely one of the very best, as is Carnegie Hall in New York, to name two old school examples that still sound just as good or better than anything built lately. But, just like with audiophile equipment, there will be huge disagreements about which halls sound the best. |
Rok, you open up a whole new discussion when you bring up film music. Definitely the most underrated aspect of film to the general audiences. Music has made the difference in so many great films. Some filmmakers even liked to have the music written first, and then build their scenes around it. A favorite example of this for me is Sergio Leone's Once Upon A Time In The West. The use of the music in that film is genius. But, we shouldn't hijack a jazz thread talking about that, so I'll shut up now. |
Just noticed someone mentioned the tune "Angel Eyes" a couple of days ago. For all those who have not heard it, you MUST listen to Ella's rendition of this on her 40th Birthday Concert album, which was recorded live in Rome. Fantastic album, by the way, one of her very best, and that tune is one of the highlights of it. |
That was a nice clip, Orpheus! They were hoping Abbe Lane would possibly be another Rita Hayworth, but that obviously did not pan out. She wasn't the dancer Hayworth was, and she certainly didn't have the acting chops. She sang better, though - she is actually more famous for that - she performed with alot of big bands in that era, though I don't think she actually recorded much. |
Hi Orpehus - I happened to come across a photo today of the woman who recorded much of the singing for Rita Hayworth in her musicals - Nan Wynn. Didn't look up a discography for her or anything, just happened across the name and thought you might be interested. |
Hi Orpheus - I was out of town for a few days there. I am actually not familiar with the soundtrack to On Green Dolphin Street. I know that's a Lana Turner film, but I have not actually seen it yet. Now that I know it has a good soundtrack, I will definitely check it out.
Quincy Jones did all kinds of different things. One of my personal favorites is a record on which he did some arrangements of a bunch of jazz standards for Julius Watkins, who was the greatest jazz hornist back in the day. Didn't do too many albums as the feature artist, but was a sideman on a great many albums, including some with Miles (Birth of the Cool being one). One of my friends is actually trying to put a group together to recreate that album in concert, but it hasn't happened yet. When it does, I will definitely participate.
Oops, got off on a tangent there - the album in question is one of those hilarious ones from the 60's, entitled French Horns For My Lady, complete with hilarious drawing of a 60's blonde holding a horn on the cover. Some of the most famous horn players in New York were in a back-up horn quartet on that album, including Gunther Schuller and John Barrows from the classical world. It was on the Philips label. Martha Flowers, of Star Trek theme song fame, does her vocal stylizing on a couple of the tunes. Hilarious arrangements. |
Hi Orpheus - that track of Julius Watkins you posted is the first one on the album I was talking about. Hilarious!
And yes, that is Martha Flowers on the original Trek theme. She is on a couple of different tracks on French Horns For My Lady. |
Good to hear everything went well, Orpheus! |
Hope you are well soon, Orpheus! |
Hi Orpheus - studio musicians and pit musicians would have pretty much a completely opposite existence, musically speaking - they are not at all the same. A top Broadway pit musician, for example, will typically play the same show 8 times a week for sometimes years - over, and over, and over, and over again. A top LA film studio musician will never play the same thing twice. If the music is very easy, sometimes they will turn the recording light on right away before there is even any rehearsal. On a usual session, they would probably read through most of the music just once, and then start recording it. If the music is truly difficult, they may have a couple of readings, and some actual rehearsal, before recording it. But basically, they are incredible sight readers. I just wanted to clarify that there is a huge difference between the two types of work - opposite extremes, in fact. A symphonic musician, like myself, is something in-between. The amount of rehearsals we have depends on the type of program we are playing. For a symphonic concert, there would be typically four or five rehearsals during the week, and three performances on the weekend. For a pops show, there would typically be only one rehearsal, the same day as the first performance of the weekend. An opera orchestra will have several rehearsals before the production opens - the first few just the orchestra alone, then a few with the singers, but not in the pit, then a couple of dress rehearsals.
I will let Frogman answer your questions about the woodwind doublers you see in the pits of theaters. |
Orpheus, that was definitely on the bizarre side. Even more so, though, would be the recording with that group plus four trombones that was mentioned in the comment below!!
I'll have to ask our harp player if she has ever heard of Dorothy Ashby. I'm partial to Harpo Marx, myself. :) |
Bobby McFerrin is also well known as a huge supporter of his fellow musicians of all stripes. A very good guy as well as good musician. |
Hey Rok - I have actually been very busy myself, and will be through the spring. Won't have much time to listen. I did have an old friend from school visiting for a few days, and we did a ton of listening to various classical things, no jazz, unless you count the soundtrack to Casino Royale.... |
Hi Orpheus - first, Frogman's post on the woodwind doublers is fantastic, as I knew it would be. One comment on your latest post - my comments on the great sightreaders were actually about the studio (movie) musicians in LA, not the Broadway pit musicians, though of course they would have good sight reading ability as well. But the LA studio musicians pretty much sightread for a living, whereas the Broadway pit musicians are often playing the exact same show night after night for a few years - total opposite musical experiences. Both types of musicians are among the best in the world, along with the top symphonic musicians, as Frogman said. |
Rok, Charles, film noir is one of my favorite genres, for sure. I would like to mention a few more ladies one should not leave out of the conversation - Rita Hayworth, Lauren Bacall, Martha Vickers, Joan Bennett, Rhonda Fleming. |
Hi Orpheus - I do not have nearly the collection of or familiarity with all the great jazz that is out there as the rest of you on this thread do, first of all. Probably only about 10-15% of my collection is jazz, another 5-10% spoken word recordings, and the rest is classical. That would probably also be an accurate reflection of the listening I do as well.
The collection of jazz recordings I do have is pretty reflective of my taste, though. By far the biggest artist represented in my collection is Ella Fitzgerald - I have just about all the songbook albums, and many more besides. She is by far my favorite jazz vocalist, though I also like Sarah Vaughn in particular. I'm not that big on male voices in jazz, for some reason.
Being a professional brass player, I tend to center in on brass players in the jazz world, which means mostly trumpet. I have several Miles Davis albums, several Wynton Marsalis albums, a little Lee Morgan, a little Louis Armstrong. I also like Clark Terry, John Faddis, Freddie Hubbard (the earlier stuff, not the later). For trombone, I have a couple of JJ Johnson albums. I also have some jazz horn albums (yes, it does exist, though it's very rare) - Julius Watkins I have mentioned earlier in the thread. There are a few different guys making their living doing jazz horn right now, too. One is a Russian guy whose name I would butcher without looking it up first, Arkady something or other, last name starts with an S. Tom Varner is another. A famous "crossover" player is Tom Bacon, who is also big in the classical world. He used to own a gay bar in Houston that featured live jazz nightly, but I think he sold it long ago, as he doesn't live there anymore.
Another of my very favorites is Oscar Peterson, who would be my favorite jazz keyboardist, though I also like Bill Evans and Monk. I also like the Basie and Ellington bands. All of this is very mainstream, I realize, but there is a good jazz club in my city which I visit sometimes, especially when a friend of mine plays there, who is a bass player in my orchestra but who is an equally accomplished jazz artist - he has a few different groups, one of which is very avant garde, and the other main one does old standards. I guess the biggest name I have heard in there live is Curtis Fuller, who unfortunately chose to spend the entire evening playing very softly, with the mike actually up his bell, and then waving a plunger mute over both. Very bizarre, though he did manage to create some interesting effects. The band with him was absolutely fantastic, though, all much younger New York guys.
I don't play a whole lot of jazz myself (mostly just when we have a jazz group or artist with the Pops, or do a big band/swing themed Pops), and have never done any jazz improv (I have, however, improvised cadenzas on the spot in horn concerti). I have played sometimes in a big band, both in school and also once or twice professionally, though that was probably 20 years ago now. This bass player friend of mine is thinking of putting a group together to recreate The Birth of the Cool live, and if he does I may get to do that. That will be fun if it happens. I guess that about covers it for now! |
Hi guys - just quickly listened once to Frogman's clip - I was not familiar with that band, very nice! I'll have to check out some more of their stuff.
Orpheus, I had not heard Benny Green, seems from the two clips I listened to that he is a pretty good player - I will definitely check out some more of him, he didn't actually play much on the two clips I heard, it was much more the sax guys.
Rok, yes, the audience most definitely has a very serious effect on the musicians, especially the smaller the group (of musicians, I mean). |
Hi guys - just wanted to let you all know that if I don't respond for a few days, it is because my internet has been sketchy lately, and we are upgrading from our DSL to something else, I think on Tuesday. I also won't be home much anyway. To respond to a couple of things for the moment:
Frogman, I have of course heard of the Village Vanguard, though I have not had a chance to get there whenever I have been up in New York. Thanks for the info on that band. I can imagine how inspiring that was to be going there regularly during those days...
Charles, I'll try to check out some more Benny Green when I get a chance!
Orpheus, I am not so big on Chuck Mangione or Herb Alpert, though I do have a couple of Herb Alpert albums that I picked up for a buck...some of his album covers and tunes were really hilarious, though, and there are some great tunes on some of his albums, for sure. I will check out the two vocalists you mentioned at some point and get back to you on them, but as I said I may not be back on this board for a few days. |
Hi Orpheus - I am back online now, and I have heard the Bennie Green clip you posted, from Glidin Along. I do like the music, however it unfortunately brings up one of my pet peeves in the recording of the brass instruments on many of these jazz albums. For some reason, they are very often recorded with the mike WAY too close - often they are playing with it just a few inches from the bell of the horn. This creates obnoxious feedback, and pretty much destroys their sound, as much of the extraneous noise that is made while playing is audible, when it would normally not be, even up quite close to them live. There are some Miles Davis albums I have where he is recorded this way, but the rest of the group sounds great. I just don't get it - it really makes no sense at all, either from a musical or a technical standpoint. It's not like these guys can't make a decent sound and NEED the help of the mike, like so many pop singers do. OK, rant over. |
Yesterday I picked up a box set of recordings of Jack Teagarden, a trombonist I was not familiar with. Haven't had a chance to listen to any of it yet, hope to tomorrow some. Are any of you familiar with him? |
Frogman, speaking of comments that have more truth in them than people realize, or are willing to admit:
****Music like this often walks a fine line between art and bullshit; the individual listener decides****
Love it. Still wondering if any of you have heard this Jack Teagarden guy (trombone). Haven't had a chance to listen to these records yet, hoping to tomorrow. They are billing him as King of the Blues Trombone. |
Hey guys - I finally got a chance to listen to half of the box set I had picked up of Jack Teagarden. It is a really fun set - great lyrics to the songs, great dixieland style band. |
Frogman - I was actually pleasantly surprised at Teagarden's technical ability. Over this three album set (48 tunes in all!) he didn't do that much that was very technically difficult, however there were several times when he suddenly, though unobtrusively and nicely within the context, did something that was actually quite difficult (the sort of thing perhaps only another brass player would even notice). So he could definitely play. Based on this limited exposure to him and certain other famous jazz trombonists I have heard, I would put his technical ability above that of say Curtis Fuller, who I have heard live. That said, quite a bit of the time he wasn't playing trombone at all, just leading the band, I guess. His singing was actually pretty good, I was reading that some people liked him better than Frank as a singer!! But I would have liked to hear him play the trombone more than he does on this set. He was certainly an impressive musician. After hearing him, I found myself wondering why I had never heard anyone even mention his name before - I think he is mostly forgotten now, which is a shame. |
Hi guys, been away from this board for a few days. Frogman, that was a very interesting Ornette Coleman clip, never seen that before.
Rok - you recently reviewed perhaps my favorite Ella album - the 40th Birthday Concert. If anyone out there reading this has not heard that, it is a must. There are so many great moments in that. No other jazz singer has ever sounded anywhere near as good, IMO. |
Django Reinhardt is most definitely considered a jazz guitarist, and a great many jazz musicians have great respect for him, including a couple of very good friends of mine. Personally, I tend to dislike any form of electronic music, so the electric guitar is no favorite of mine. I believe Reinhardt also wrote quite a few good tunes, Frogman am I totally off base on that?? |
Rok, the Oscar Peterson at the Concertgebouw album is a good one, if you are not familiar with it already. I would definitely second that recommendation.
Frogman definitely answered your orchestral questions very nicely. I would agree with his speculation about #3 having to do with optional passages, or more likely, actual cuts in the music that were NOT specified by the composer. Another even stronger possibility would be repeats designated by the composer that were not observed, thus messing with the form of the work. Many, in fact most conductors often omit some repeats in Classical era symphonies, for example, which would have horrified the composers of these works - Mozart has some hilarious comments on the subjects in his letters. Frankly, I agree with him. In my opinion, it does mess with the intended form and balance of the composition, and I personally believe all of those repeats should be observed, as they were back in the day. When they are not, for instance in the symphonies of Brahms and others in the Romantic era, the audience is literally not hearing some of the notes he wrote that are played only if the repeat is going to be made, but are not played in the continuation. That's maybe not very clear, but hopefully you get the meaning. I think that this is what the reviewers are most likely referring to, and that it has nothing to do with the technical ability of the players, but with the choice of the conductor not to observe a repeat. |
Hi guys - sorry, been very busy. Now have a few days off, but will be going to visit my folks for Thanksgiving, so will probably be off the board again.
Orpheus - yes, as I believe Rok said, those are mellophones. By the way, the term Stan Kenton uses in that video is incorrect, he calls them something weird like mellophoniums. Anyway, they are basically large trumpets that have a mellower sound, closer to my instrument in tone quality. Larger than the fluglehorn, which you may be more familiar with, as that is used much more in jazz than the mellophones were, and the sound of a flugle horn is closer to the trumpet sound than the mellophone is. In fact, I think Stan Kenton's band was the only one that used mellophones on anything like a regular basis. They are most commonly used in marching bands. The trumpet players in that video were playing them, however in many marching bands, an extension is put into the lead pipe of the instrument so that a French horn mouthpiece can fit, and then horn players play them. They are truly awful instruments, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. In recent years, an instrument called the marching French horn has been invented to replace mellophones, so they are not used much at all anymore. They were quite common, though, nothing unusual about them, in fact I think it is unusual that you haven't ever seen one - you probably have in marching bands without realizing it.
In the two years I spent in a high school marching band before I escaped to an arts academy, I had to play the mellophone. Miserable experience. I have played some Stan Kenton charts that had mellophone parts in pops concerts, though we played them on our regular horns. They were screaming high, so were not very pleasant to play. Decent enough charts. That was a very popular band, guys like Maynard Ferguson and other famous trumpet players came out of it. Nothing particularly interesting about it from a purely musical standpoint, frankly, but they did have some good tunes. |
Hi O-10 - I have once again missed a bunch of this thread - I have an album of Willie Ruff's that is very bizarre - he is playing hymn tunes pretty much by himself, some with an organ, in a very boomy church. Could you direct me to which link you are speaking of? I would definitely be interested to hear it! |
Hi O-10 - thanks for reposting those links. It made me realize I had heard of Willie Ruff also in the context of Yale, but never put two and two together that this was the same jazz horn player. I haven't Googled him, so I don't know if he is still living. He certainly hasn't been at Yale in decades now.
The one clip that had him playing horn was quite short, just the Stompin at the Savoy tune. Fine rendition, as far as it goes, doesn't really show off much improvisational skill. I don't have any albums of his other than the one I mentioned where he is playing hymn tunes in a church. I'd love to hear more of him, to really check out what he could do. It's possible that he didn't improvise a whole lot - he certainly would have learned that skill later in his horn playing life, judging from the comments he makes to Gumbel.
He certainly wasn't the best out there in the New York jazz scene back in the day, though this should not be taken to mean he was not a good player. The best jazz hornist out there was Julius Watkins - I have a few albums of his that he did as leader, though usually he was a side man, as pretty much most jazz horn players are. Robert Northern was another, and even Gunther Schuller played quite a bit of jazz on the side back in the day when he wasn't in the pit at the Metropolitan Opera. All three of these men appeared with Miles Davis, at least two of them on Birth of the Cool. Julius Watkins records are worth seeking out, though they are very hard to find and usually very expensive, being Blue Notes. There is one he did for Philips called French Horns For My Lady, all Quincy Jones arrangements. |
Hi guys - sorry to be again away from the discussion for so long. I must admit, reading through the recent posts here, that I am very dismayed and frustrated at some of what I am reading. Frogman has made a valiant effort - I do not feel there is any lack of clarity to his arguments here. He certainly writes much more clearly than I, and makes the arguments I would make better than I would. This perhaps makes it even more frustrating to me that some are not getting it. I will make another attempt myself. And please, Rok, I know you have said you are not taking this personally, so I trust that will continue to be the case.
I must quote Rok again here: "All your comments are right on target, IF, I said IF, this were a class at a music school. ... This entire thread is about what we like, or don't like. Musical expertise has nothing to do with it. It's all based on emotion. If it does not grab you, or connect with you, what difference does it make how well the player can play the instrument?"
These two statements sum up the attitude which boggles the mind of musicians. We do appreciate very much the love for music that you obviously have - trust me, we are very aware of the fact that people like you are keeping the music alive. You are our audience, and we couldn't make a living without you.
That said, it is also extremely distressing to realize that despite loving the music so much, you yet are amazingly ignorant (please understand I speak not of intelligence here, but knowledge) about the music you love, and can apparently only relate to it on what you call an emotional level.
Yes, music has emotion, and this is one reason why it is called a universal language. But this is only scratching the surface of what music is. You can listen to music just for the sheer beauty of the sound - this can be an escape, a consolation, just feeling good, whatever. But it is also brainless. You are not really thinking about the music. This aspect of music is extremely important, but it is not the whole story, and more importantly, it should not overwhelm the rest.
Now we get into expression. Most people believe that all music has some expressive power, even though some composers, like Stravinsky, insist that music is an object or thing with no other meaning than a purely musical one. Another composer, Aaron Copland, states the problem this way: "Is there a meaning to music? My answer to that would be yes. Can you state in so many words what the meaning is? My answer to that would be no. Therein lies the difficulty." You must not be afraid to not know what any piece of music is "about."
Music can express all sorts of different emotions or moods, much more than words could describe. This is why many musicians, like Stravinsky, say it only has a purely musical meaning. Another way of saying this, Copland says, is that they do not feel the need to find words for this meaning. Even if you are satisfied with your own description of what a piece of music means (or why you like it, which amounts to the same thing), there is no guarantee that anyone else will describe that same piece in the same way you do. And if it is a really great piece, it shouldn't be saying the same thing to you every time anyway.
What many non-musicians don't have enough awareness of is the purely musical. Besides the sound and the expression, music does exist in terms of the notes themselves and their manipulation by the composer or performers or both. I would be remiss if I did not add that us professionals are sometimes too conscious of this and tend to forget about the simpler yet deeper planes. That said, most people concentrate only on the melody, maybe the rhythm. Harmony and tone color they take for granted. And I haven't even talked about form. Copland makes an analogy to the theater. It would be like going to a play and only concentrating on the actors, costumes, sets, sounds, movements, and the emotions you feel, while totally ignoring plot and plot development. Now, in the theater, you are not consciously aware of all these separations, you take it all in at once without thinking about it. It is the same when listening to music. To quote Copland again: "the ideal listener is both inside and outside the music at the same moment, judging it and enjoying it, wishing it would go one way and watching it go another - almost like the composer at the moment he composes it; because in order to write his music, the composer must also be inside and outside his music, carried away by it and yet coldly critical of it. A subjective and objective attitude is implied in both creating AND LISTENING to music." (My bold.) I would also add that the performer is doing this as well, whether it is an orchestral musician, or a jazz soloist improving, or a rock musician jamming.
We want you to listen more actively - you WILL deepen your enjoyment and love for it by doing so. As Copland says, you want to be "not someone who is just listening, but someone who is listening FOR something."
The weirdest part to me about this discussion taking place on an audiophile website is that everyone here will say that they listen this way to their systems, and that is why they can detect minute differences between two pieces of equipment, etc. Why the hell wouldn't you do the same for the music you love? That's the reason your systems exist in the first place!!
The quotes and frankly much of the argument above is taken from Aaron Copland's book "What to listen for in Music." I have recommended it here many times, and can never do so enough, no matter what kind of music you like. |
LOL, Rok - no sulking or pouting going on here! Haven't had a lot of time to be on this site over the holidays. If you like tenors, probably my all time favorite would be Jussi Bjorling, a Swedish tenor from the 50's early 60's. I have several of his LPs, and I am sure there are plenty of youtube things if you want to check him out that way. Fantastic voice, along with incredible musicianship and fabulous breath control. Try to find one of his recordings of Nessun Dorma.
Puccini in general is a good place for opera newbies to start. Tosca is probably my favorite, other super popular ones are La Boheme, Madame Butterfly.
A glaring omission from your short list would be Mozart. A great first opera is his comedy The Marriage of Figaro. Also Don Giovanni, though that's not a comedy (has many very funny moments, though). The Magic Flute is one of the most sublime operas ever written, though some find the story very silly. |
Hi Rok: to answer your questions:
1. Not sure what you mean here, exactly, without seeing it. Doesn't make much sense, frankly. I am assuming it is not a singer? Are you sure it is headphones and a mike?
2. You are seeing rotary-valve trumpets. The same type of valves used on my instrument, the French horn. They have a darker sound, and are more widely used in Europe than they are over here, though sometimes players here will use them, especially in rep like Brahms where they want a darker sound.
3. Yes. Always. There are a couple of exceptions which I believe we discussed long ago in this thread, if I am remembering correctly. Baroque musicians add ornaments to their parts in certain places, and the continuo part was always improvised by the keyboardist - only the bass notes and the chord symbols were provided. Another exception would be the cadenza of a concerto, which in the classical and even into the romantic era would be made up on the spot by the soloist, just like jazz improvisation, except the melodies will be based on melodies in the movement in question, though the harmonies are often changed radically. There are still some soloists who do this in performance today, though not many anymore. But for exceptions like these, however, the answer to your question is a flat yes, until well into the twentieth century, when composers started experimenting with "chance" music, etc.
To elaborate further, the same would go for film music, unless it is someone like Morricone, who wrote many of the spaghetti westerns. All he did was write the melodies and harmonies, and someone else orchestrated it.
And as I am pretty sure we have discussed long ago in this thread, even in jazz the only thing truly being improvised normally are the solos - and these are almost always based on standard tunes - very little is truly freely improvised, someone making up whatever they want. All the musicians know the chord structures used in the tunes, so even jazz is not so mysterious as it may seem. They even have things called "Fake Books" which are books that have the chord structures of all the tunes - these are particularly useful in the case of performers who are not in a regular group, thrown together for a gig, maybe none of them have even played together before. They would discuss ahead of time which tunes they will do (or even during breaks on the gig, before the next set), and reference a Fake Book if they need to. Instrumentation is generally much more flexible in jazz as well. Now in a big band, for example, everything would be written out for everyone except the solos. This is even done on something like Miles Davis Birth of the Cool, where you have a larger ensemble - much of that was written out. There were a couple of horn players on that album, by the way. A friend of mine is trying to put a group together to recreate that album, and I hope to participate if that ever happens. The problem is the guy who has the music would want to play, and he kinda sucks, so, my friend doesn't want him to play, so he won't loan us the music. Sigh. |
Orpheus - Miles used horn on quite a few of his albums - I believe I have mentioned Birth of the Cool already in this thread. We also discussed horn in jazz quite a while back. I know I have mentioned Julius Watkins and that same album in your first link above. He is the most famous jazz horn player from that era, and probably ever. He was usually what they call a side man, but did record some albums as leader of a group, like that one. Those arrangements, by the way, were all done by Quincy Jones, and the quartet of "back up horns" included two of the most famous classical players in New York at the time, Gunther Schuller and John Barrows. Gunther Schuller is still alive, and still teaching and writing music (he is also a composer). I have met him before, and most hornists own a copy of his famous horn method book.
The third link you posted is Tom Varner, who is currently the leading jazz hornist in the world. There are only a handful of players who make their living doing it, and he is one of them. I haven't ever met him, but we have chatted online on horn websites. Nice guy, and good player.
No idea who the guy in the second link is, and it doesn't say. He is obviously not an improviser, since even though he did write that tune, he is using music (as is the pianist and even that guitar player). That one is not my cup of tea anyway, with the electric guitar and electronic keyboard. Although he is a decent enough player, I was not particularly impressed. Certainly not the level of player (or musician) in the other two links. |
Hi Orpheus - that's a nice story. There are good and bad repair guys, sounds like you had a good one. Many musicians will fly across the country to have a certain person work on their instrument. I am lucky to have one of the very best in my immediate area. It's about time for my annual cleaning, now that I think about it.
The best ones are usually former or current players themselves, though the repair would be their main work. Some teach on the side as well.
As for the system you heard there, most musicians that are into hifi gravitate to old school tubes and horn speakers once they have heard them. Still the closest thing out there for reproducing timbre, dynamics, (softs, too) etc. I know a few who like the electrostats, too, but those are much more finicky. Horns are so much easier to deal with. And I agree that much of what is supposedly state of the art really doesn't sound very good at all in comparison, assuming we are talking about reproducing acoustic instruments or voices that were recorded in a good, live space. Folks that only listen to mostly or entirely electronically produced (and studio produced) music will not care so much about the things the old school equipment can do, and that's fine. Different strokes for different folks, depends on what your priorities are. |
Orpheus, to answer your question first - yes, it is normally just called "the horn," and everyone knows that that means French horn. There's really nothing French about it, and no one knows why it acquired that name in the first place. The International Horn Society officially changed the name of the instrument back in the 70s to Horn. Of course, many of the general public are totally unaware of this. But if a classical musician or classical music lover mentions "the horn," they are definitely talking about my instrument (shame on them if not, they should know better, LOL).
Rok - if the women in the NY Phil were wearing brightly colored dresses, this was certainly a special occasion. That is definitely NOT normal, and they do not normally do it, I assure you. Black is the norm, whether very formal or less so sometimes now. I think that was a special New Year's Eve or New Year's Day thing, if I remember?? I did hear about that concert.
The Vienna Phil is pretty much the last standing all-male orchestra, and even they have had a couple of women in their ranks in the last couple of decades. I believe their current harpist is female, but I think that's it at the moment.
There are a great many women in all US orchestras now, and in most around the rest of the world as well. Even on my instrument, the majority of students at the top music schools in the country are female, and this is slowly beginning to be reflected in the professional ranks.
There are many CDs available of many US orchestras, and yes, the best ones are as good as any in the world. Which are the top ten would still generate furious debate (either speaking of the whole world, or just US orchestras). The five you mentioned are the traditional "big five" US orchestras, but there are at least three others who merit very serious consideration (to be in the top five, I mean). The Pittsburgh Symphony is certainly top ten in the world right now, as is the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra. Other great American orchestras are Minnesota (what is happening there is an absolute travesty), LA, San Francisco, National, Detroit, Atlanta, St. Louis, Dallas, Cincinnati. All of these are considered top tier groups. There are a great many second tier groups which are also world class ensembles - Baltimore, Houston, Nashville, Fort Worth, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Utah. I could go on, I have left a few out. I do play in one of the ones I have listed, though I do not want to say which, as I want to maintain relative anonymity here, so I can feel free to post what I like about conductors, orchestras, musicians, etc., without fear of offending colleagues. I did NOT list these groups in any sort of ranking order, by the way. I have friends in all of them...
About the recordings, most orchestras now self-produce their recordings, so you would need to go to their websites to find current recordings for all but the very largest groups. Also, a great way to check out different orchestras and what they are doing is to see if they stream old concerts, or live ones. Or go online and find their local radio stations that do their broadcasts. You can listen to so many more orchestras nowadays this way than ever before. |
