Jazz for aficionados
Well, its quite posssible that Orpheus had more than one friend whose music we have listened. If its organist, I think I know who he is and I am not sure if its polite for me to say? Anyway, this guy played with him ( with that organist) on one album and than got the chance to record his own album as a leader, made two, but did not became famous. Here is the link...Fred Jackson 'Hootin and Tootin'... https://youtu.be/eZKR_d7gHMU https://youtu.be/8khR_oqp0Oo https://youtu.be/dS0mnaLAus8 |
Alex, I'm going to almost clear things up; if such a person existed, his style would have been similar to Fred Jackson's, but that was before he lived in my apartment. The music he played when he lived in my apartment was so advanced from that music, and none of it was recorded. Acman3's statement is Gospel truth. The bottom line is; I can not prove the music he was playing during the time he was living in my apartment. My detractors might say, "You can't believe anything he say's". That's fine because I always provide links, no one has to believe anything I say; however, "The mystery jazzman did not practice for one single solitary day, nor did he give any inclination that he wanted to". Acman, I believe you know who the person that does not exist is, keep it to yourself, and maintain what I told you. Irony of ironies, when I turned on my rig, (my play list is so long that it plays continuously) the "Mystery jazzman" was playing as a sideman. That concludes this story forever. Enjoy the music. |
I guess you guys are tired of my stories by now; I've still got a few, but I'm absolutely not going to mention any names if their careers were shortened by substance abuse. Jeanne Trevor is a name I can mention. I remember when she was a stone fox; she's in 'semi retirement' now and performs at our church sometime. I've got her bio here. http://www.allmusic.com/artist/jeanne-trevor-mn0000814358 You can check it out, I remember when she performed at a most elegant establishment on Lindel Blvd., that's one of the ritziest streets in St. Louis. She wasn't recording when she was singing there, so I just discovered; that was a big mistake. She sang "torchy jazz songs" when I saw her; she was quite a fox then. Here she is at a concert in 2013. The best thing about Ms. Trevor is the fact that she's enjoying life; here she is with Wendy Gordon having fun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjJK52t2k60 Enjoy the music. |
O-10, is the reason you do not want to name your friend because he was a substance abuser, and this shortened his life/career? If so, why? I don't think any serious listener's opinion of his playing is going to change because of that knowledge (certainly no serious musician's would!). If you have talked about this before, I'm sorry I do not recall it. If this is the only reason you are holding back, I would say that you do not need to worry about that. |
Wow, Rok, you have asked quite a deep question there. I would say the impetus comes from the human spirit - mankind's constant need to explore/experiment. Obviously this is somewhat related to the advance of technology, too, though that is only part of it. Composers today are still trying to come up with new sounds, and many of the innovations of the past came from composers. Most of them would have come from the players of the instruments, though - they certainly do today. |
Artical about J.P. Sartre's thoughts and comments in contact with jazz music of his time...http://www.openculture.com/2016/03/jean-paul-sartre-on-how-american-jazz-lets-you-experience-existen... |
Alex, that was very good. I didn't see anything "objective" from the writers point of view. From a music teacher's or musicians point of view, there is a lot that's objective, but since I'm neither one of them, my point of view is purely "subjective", and there is no way I can put it any other way. One of my detractors stated that my post's are more about my perceptions and opinions, than the music it self. Should my post's be about his perceptions and opinions? "Sharing an opinion with others can be a fine thing, but confusing your opinion, and/or valuation, of the music itself, or even a specific performance, with something absolute, is too god like for me to want to endure. Nothing new here. I said as much 3 years ago." The above is what one of my detractors wrote. He states that I have confused my opinions as something absolute. Only a person with an "objective" point of view does this, it is my detractor who is confused. Enjoy the music. |
Rok, what was the truth yesterday, is a big fat lie today. I don't know if you've ever watched "Charley Chan", but I'm a Charley Chan fan, and I think about how all the different departments functioned like they were supposed to; now everything functions according to "money", and people do as they are told and not according to the purpose for which they were hired. For example: raising interest rates was the very worst thing a person could do when unemployment was high, plus a lot of people had those loans where their payments went up if the interest rate went up. Those people lost their homes when they couldn't pay, because their house payments went a lot higher than they agreed on. "They said", meaning they who say whatever they are told to say; they said those people tried to buy more house than they could pay for; but the truth is those people agreed to payments they could make; say a thousand dollars a month, but when the payment went to two thousand a month, they couldn't pay, and were foreclosed on. A high school graduate in economics would have known not to raise the interest rate, why didn't Ben Bernanke Know not to raise the rate? He's stated that raising the rate was a mistake. What good does that do all those homeless people? Is knowing how to install a cartridge more important than paying attention to what's going on in Washington? I know this is completely off subject, but I do that occasionally. Enjoy the music. |
*****
I know this is completely off subject, but I do that occasionally.**** Not only off subject, but dead wrong. The interest rate on " fixed rated" mortgages never changes. Your monthly mortgage payment will remain constant for the life of the loan. Some people pay their property tax monthly with their mortgage as one payment. An increase in property tax can result in an increase in your monthly payment, but that's due to tax increases not interest rates. If you have a 'variable rate' or a mortgage with a Balloon a payment, it can increase. But all of this is explained when you sign the loan. Don't blame the Fed. There should not be any surprises here. Basic problem: There are two types of people in the world. (1) People who think if it's possible for something to go wrong or bad, it will. (2) People that always think everything be all right. The best possible outcome will always be THE outcome. They go through life just a wishing and a hoping. They also think that everyone in the world should look out for them, and their best interest. I am of the first type. Folks who took out mortgages on houses they could not afford are of the second type. As the folks in the military always say, don't make plans based on what the enemy might do, plan according to what he has the capability to do. Cheers |
"Not only off subject, but dead wrong. The interest rate on fixed rated" mortgages never changes. Your monthly mortgage payment will remain constant for the life of the loan. Some people pay their property tax monthly with their mortgage as one payment. An increase in property tax can result in an increase in your monthly payment, but that's due to tax increases not interest rates." THE SKY IS BLUE, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. Those people were encouraged to take out those loans by their political representatives, who they trusted and believed in. Those loans were presented as the thing to do. If what you are saying is don't believe your government, you got that right. I sold real estate, and I would not have gotten one of those loans for my worst enemy. I worked for my clients, some of who were not the swiftest, that's why they came to me; I was suppose to lead them. It's not the house, but the house payment; you're using the same exact language "They Used". What language was everybody using before those people signed the papers? Why did Ben Bernanke raise the interest rate? He said inflation. Was that a period of inflation when we had high unemployment? I had a dummy over to my house, whose house is paid for, he was telling me the kind of loan he got and how smart he was. The dummy forgot I negotiated the special low rate loan he got, and I had to bring loans to that company in order to get his loan. "They bought houses they could not afford". They agreed to payments they could make when they signed the papers. I'm not talking about one individual, but a mass of individuals who were encouraged to take out these loans, and shady fast talking real estate agents who encouraged them. Can you answer the question as to why Ben Bernanke raised the interest rate? If it was the right thing to do, why did he say it was a mistake? can you answer those two questions; if not, the case is closed. |
Rok you were "property" of the US government, you could have gotten court-martial for getting frost bite in Alaska. You were not paid to think; but that's the way all military's have functioned since time began. It's good to get off subject occasionally. If you notice, none of the wire worshipers but in. Enjoy the music. |
*****
Rok you were "property" of the US government, you could have gotten court-martial for getting frost bite in Alaska. You were not paid to think; but that's the way all military's have functioned since time began.***** Wrong, wrong and wrong. I was not 'property' MY career would have been if jeopardy if one of my soldiers had suffered from frost bite. I was paid to think. BTW, if you were a real estate agent, you guys were the problem. Not the Fed. Cheers |
Hi O-10 - your post today about subjectivity and objectivity was interesting. Most of it is fine as far as it goes. However, as Frogman has pointed out several times, there is much more about music that is indeed objective than you think. It requires knowledge of music to be able to determine which is which. And since you state that you have no knowledge of music and do not want any, doesn't this mean that your point of view is neither objective or subjective, but simply un-informed? Even subjectivity assumes knowledge of the subject. You seem to imply that your un-informed point of view has equal value to an informed one. While this may be true for you, I don't see how it could possibly be true for anyone else, and that is the problem. You also imply that this situation is unchangeable, which it is clearly not. Again, that is up to you. Please do not take this personally - I am genuinely interested in trying to bridge the disconnect here. I am not at all implying that you are not capable of understanding - I know you are if you wanted to. But if you really don't want to, then it seems to me that you really shouldn't complain about your "detractors" who insist on correcting false statements/perceptions. |
Learsfool, ARC has engineers to design their amps and pre-amps. After the engineers have finished, they have 'audiophiles' to fine tune them. There is nothing "objective" about what these audiophiles are doing, it is all subjective. Any thing that is objective can be measured; how would you measure the beauty of Mary Lou Williams music? I measure it by my senses. Whether or not anyone else agrees with my measurements is totally moot. How do I measure the soul in the tune "Blue Funk" by Milt Jackson and Ray Charles; that tune has so much soul that it's incomprehensible. In order to capture the nuance completely, a 45 RPM disc and a high end analog rig with tube amplification is required. How do I know this, you might ask; I know it through my subjective senses that are in harmony with others who have the same senses. How do I know my subjective senses are accurate? By a comparison with many others whose same subjective senses have been acknowledged. "Moanin" by Bobby Timmons is another tune with a high degree of "soul", how do I know this? Because Bobby Timmons music speaks to the soul; not just my soul, but to the soul of multitudes. His music conveys messages without words; it projects emotions that people who don't even speak the same language recieve. In regard to those who think my perceptions are false, I don't ask them to listen to or believe my perceptions; why should it matter if my perceptions are false to them. Who is the absolute judge of perceptions, and who judges their perceptions? Enjoy the music. |
Acman, that trio sounded kind of like this tro; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0FIsFD9MXU Enjoy the music. |
Let's explore the music of Ry Cooder; he's all over the place, no matter what your groove is Ry Cooder's got it. Imagine waking up at three in the morning to find yourself in a landscape with city streets and no houses as far as the eye could see, with nothing but the light of the silvery moon. This is the music that would fit such a setting. //www.youtube.com/watch?v=050TIMlpmL0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOkXrd6eRRw0 Like I said, no matter where you want to go, Ry Cooder can take you there. Enjoy the music. |
Orpheus, have you watched this movie? It certainly explains a lot of things behind some aspects of US economy. It is a not an action movie, in fact the trailer is not true to a real tempo of the film, which is very slow, patient, and the caracters are all in service of the story (or better understanding of it) https://youtu.be/LWr8hbUkG9s However, as it is a story about US economy, I am not sure am I allowed to comment on that, since I am European? As to your perception,nobody is saying that it is 'false', when you talk about work of some late masters, its just that you are fixed on one period and couple of styles, which is perfectly all right. (like I said, that is my favourite music as well) But in the same time, it seems to me that you refusing to except that any other music that was made later in time has an equal right to be called 'jazz' Now we are coming to a 'problematic' part. When you are asked to explain which elements of music are best describing the 'jazz' that you like, or what it is the thing that it makes you like it, you simply refer to it as a 'soul'. On the oher hand, the music that you dont like you simply call 'intellectual' or 'soulless' without further analysis of elements of its 'lackings' There is no need for so many harsh words, I guess Frog.or Leafr. could simply ignored some of the coments written here and continue to write about their favourite music. I can only speak for myself, but for example, when I hear somebody praisng Keith Jarret, without knowing the work of Evans, than I am sceptical about his musical taste and his knowledge in general. But, as we all have seen, Frogman is quite good in recognising the good music from the past (aldo he dont like some of my 'forgotten' ones) and somehow I am more inclined to trust him or his taste about some contemporary music after that. The fact that I still may not like that music does not mean that that music is not good, it is quite possible that I am not 'there' yet. I am sure that we all can agree that our music taste has changed during time. So, whats the problem? |
Alex, in regard to that movie, I haven't seen it BUT I will. Even if you were an American citizen, you are not supposed to talk about fraud that insinuates the government is involved. In regard to "jazz" you must be confusing me with Rok, I have no problem with anyone's opinion about the music. Their problem is they seem to think I should learn something about music, and my reply is I DON'T GIVE A HOOT NOR HANG ABOUT LEARNING ONE WRITTEN NOTE, IS THAT CLEAR? |
*****
I DON'T GIVE A HOOT NOR HANG ABOUT LEARNING ONE WRITTEN NOTE, IS THAT CLEAR?****** We get it! We get it! We got it a long time ago!!!! You talk about music at length. You express likes and dislikes. You talk about how the music moves you. Given all that, the way you say what you are trying to say seems just a little incredulous. Maybe "I am not interested in the Academic side of music, or music theory, or the history music" would be better. Because your all-caps statements don't seem to jive with a person that calls himself a Jazz Aficionado. Cheers |
Rok, in regard to your nuts and bolts, take them back to the hardware store. In regard to my knowledge and opinion of jazz music, it has been validated over the years. If you go back through the posts, you will discover that my taste in music is preferred over Frogman's. In regard to the nuts and bolts, those who regard such in their "jazz" music, make it quite clear, because some of their preferences sound like it. Let me give yall something else to knock, I do not recall one written musical sheet of paper any where near my "imaginary jazz musician". If this isn't enough, I got more. |
Today's Listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m85XjDtBvU4&index=1&list=PLsvmOVH32OwBU9QVUEyApHLk_Vb91mSmX I would like for everyone to write their thoughts on this CD. The Tune lineup is stellar. The cover photo is Gawjus. What do you think of the performance? The tunes are all well known so it should be easy listening. Since this is a German Band, I am anxious to see what ALEX thinks. Cheers |
O-10, other than they are playing a Bill Evan's tune, and Bill Evan's bass player is on bass, I don't think they sound much alike. Mr. Evans has a soft touch and quite a different way of playing from Mr. Werner. Werner actually strikes his keys when they are bad. Evans always tries to spoil his keys with timeouts. I do think they both would agree, less is more. |
Acman, in your first post you stated this was a bassist that had attracted your attention, and I was primarily comparing the two bassist. As you noted, the two piano players are quite different. You said that was Bill Evans bass player, when Scott Lafaro was Bill Evans bass player. Was that Bill Evans bass player at another time? Was there anything in particular that I missed about that bassist? |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn0LYrbQc_0 Sorry I was comparing the trio's as a whole, and mainly Evans to Werner. My bad! Forgot the initial point was the bass player. Marc Johnson played with Bill Evans from 1978 until his death. |
Rok, answer to your first question. I used Jarret Evans comparation as metaphore. Sometimes I meet people who 'listen jazz' and have lots of Ecm records, which is ok. But its been known to happen that those same people often have very strong opinions about artistic value of some performer, or about that music and its aesthetcs (which again is nothing wrong per se) but when I discover that their knowledge is limited to a very narrow time frame (usually the more recent one) I cant consider their opinion as a worthy, but just as expression of their taste. I guess that one cant play (or listen) jazz if does not know 'Body and soul'. Again, I used that line because here some 'new' music has been under heavy criticism, but the person (Frogman) who posted some of it, knows very well even the 'old' stuff and we cant play that card (limited knowledge) when he is keen to open some new windows. Its funny that I am acting as advocate to that 'new stuff' when in fact I am on constant search for long forgotten music and performers, but I am curios and I belleive that role of individual is to choose a dialectic method if we want to 'discover the truth'. Speaking of curiosty, I noticed that everyone likes Miles and Coltrane, up to a point. (Miles, for me, Prestige years and couple albums after) What if they would try to pursue some of you (us) that their later music has 'soul and beauty' as equal to their earlier work? Or that perhaps, they could not be tied to that simpler form of expressions? IMHO there are lot of intersting questions that jazz afc.could or should ask if they want to have better perspective on the subject, and we should welcome discussions, and not insist on uniform opinion or taste. As for your second question, I cant open those you tube clips. Maybe you could find some another? I will gladly share my thoughts . In the meantime here is one european artist (belgian, as inspector Poirot) Francy Boland (born 1929.) 'Playing with trio' from 1967. https://youtu.be/QyrARKhzsPg https://youtu.be/ctL6coRgW8A https://youtu.be/C4oCnGqZKg8 |
Hi O-10 - thanks for the response, which again is quite good, as far as it goes. The problem is, as Alex tried to point out, it doesn't really go far enough. As he says, you have dismissed many things without explanation that others have written on this board, because they don't fit in with your perceptions. Sometimes, this is perfectly fine, as when we are speaking of personal taste, something truly subjective. But other times, what is being discussed is something objective, but which you do not understand - so you say that it must really be subjective. That's where the problem is, in a nutshell. You do not really know the subject, so you sometimes cannot tell whether something is objective or subjective. It is clearly incorrect to dismiss anything you do not understand and label it subjective, which is basically what you have done. Those who are knowledgeable on the particular subject see this immediately, but you do not and cannot. For instance, take your "nuts and bolts" comment in one of your later posts. You said "In regard to the nuts and bolts, those who regard such in their "jazz" music, make it quite clear, because some of their preferences sound like it." This makes absolutely no real sense - you know nothing of the "nuts and bolts", and do not want to. Fine - this much you understand. Problem is, what you do not understand is that your perception of the "nuts and bolts" is false - it is obvious to anyone who does know even a little about the "nuts and bolts" that you have absolutely no idea of what effect they have (or have had) on anyone's playing, or the music they make, or the sound they make; yet you speak as if you can tell how someone's preferences sound in reference to that. This is just one example. |
See if you can locate the various greats from this band. Nice solo by Kenny Garrett. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwR6jeSnE8I Rok, I am still trying to get through the Bernard Perdie CD. I have Soul to Jazz II. Will report back once complete. |
Mel Lewis (d), Jim McNeely (p), John Lockwood (b) saxes, left to right: Joe Lovano, Kenny Garrett, Dick Oats, Gary Prebeck, Gary Smulyan bones: Earl McYntire, Doug Purviance, John Mosca, ? (don't recognize), french horn: Barbara trumpets: Tom Harrell, Earl Gardner, Joe Mosello, John Marshall (I think?) I agree, nice solo by Kenny Garrett. Band sounds great. Thanks. |
Alex, you have made some extremely thoughtful and open-minded posts recently. You addressed many of the issues which have been the source of contention on this thread, and I find it impressive that you did it while, at the same time, acknowledging your personal preferences and the possibility of new understanding. I promised you a response to a couple of your thought provoking comments: ****and why they value the idea behind the music more than its aestetchics (correct me if I am wrong)**** The overall premise of your entire comment is entirely fair and correct. However, I will correct you on this one piece of it. It is not that we value the "idea" more than the "aesthetics". This would presume that we value the aesthetics of more modern styles of jazz less than that of the more traditional styles; speaking for myself, I do not. The best explanation can be found in a recent comment by Newbee, the idea that ****musicians don’t have a chronological anchor**** What I believe Newbee means and which is entirely correct is that, as has been often said, there are only two kinds of music, good and bad. The place of any given music in the chronological landscape (style) is not important; whether it is composed/performed with integrity and at a high level of craft is. In other words, most musicians find aesthetic value in Benny Goodman’s Sextet as they do Bird, Miles or in Brad Mehldau. To dismiss one or the other as "soulless" or "too intellectual" says much more about the listener than it says about the music. ****Also, I think, by learning and later perhaps knowing or recognising ’their point’ can open the whole new world in appreciating the music that now stays beyond our understanding.**** EXACTLY! And the point that I’ve tried to make countless times and to which there has been much resistance. No one has ever suggested that there is anything wrong with having a preferred style; we all do. To not have a "chronological anchor" does not mean that the chronology should be ignored; quite the opposite. To appreciate and understand the chronology is the key to understanding the evolution of the music, the inevitability of the changing styles and why and how it got to where it’s today. As has also often been said: Art reflects the times; whether we like what it’s says or not is a separate matter. All this leads to something that I feel needs to be cleared up re a comment made by Rok in response to my comment that "musicians are teachers by nature". I will speak for myself; but I think that I can speak for Learsfool also. We never set out to "teach" anyone. Like everyone else, from the start of my participation on this thread I wanted to share music and discuss topics that may come up. The problem always arises when disagreement that is backed by verifiable information becomes a major bone of contention and rancor ensues. There has been just as much vehement "disagreement" by those in the "subjective" camp as there has been by those in the "objective" camp. Yet, when the objectivist offers explanations backed by verifiable data all hell breaks loose. Seems to me that this is simply a way to shut up the dissenting voice. The only alternative then would become to not have dialogue at all; an unfortunate situation in my view. An exchange between Acman3 and Rok is a good example: ** Study the origins of Bebop, then come back. They were studying everyday what the classical composers of their time were doing.***** This is what is called ’wishful thinking’ . (1) Name me some classical music that you can point to and say, "this is the origin of be-bop". If anything, 20th century Classical Composers stole from Jazz.**** Well, what to do if there is to be dialogue about this? One could ignore the fact that there is truth to what Acman3 is saying and leave the matter in the realm of "opinion". Or, one can ask the question: Where does Rok think that the concepts of harmony in jazz came from if not from the European "Classical" tradition? (teach?😁) Of course, there has to be at least a minimal understanding of what harmony is if this is to make sene. If one ignores the facts then it becomes easy to fit all that one WANTS music to be into our own personal agenda for it. Anyway, Alex, please continue posting thoughtful comments and I am glad you are participating. One of my very favorite lesser known tenor players, and one of those sessions that one gets the feeling that all the stars aligned. Blue Mitchell is absolutely brilliant on this record: https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLB2C2CCC049C7989B&v=SRFhsMvWKmM |
Frogman, Perhaps Rok was thinking about Shostakovitch when he said 20th century classical composers stole from jazz. Actually I think his attempts to compose 'jazz' might be more accurate, especially his jazz suites, which while pleasant enough don't really float my boat. I'm not aware of other quotes from 'jazz' in his music but I'd be surprised if they don't exist. Composers and performers of all styles of music have been quoting each other's music and style since a man in Africa started beating a log with a stick. :-) |
*****
Composers and performers of all styles of music have been quoting each other's music and style since a man in Africa started beating a log with a stick. :-)***** This most likely is very true. Keeping in mind that in order to quote something, you have to have heard it. In fact I posted something very similar to this a while back. If you want to say all music has a common source,(Humans) I have no problem with that. But humans have been around a lot longer than the 'European classical tradition'. But, I have never heard anyone say that Beethoven's Ninth can be traced back to that log being struck. But I am sure folks in some circles will say that's where 'Satin Doll' originated. Man on a mission. Cheers |
Shostakovitch Jazz Suites: I posted this a few weeks ago. The most interesting thing about this music is that the composer considered it Jazz. This begs the question, where did he get his concept of Jazz? Not from Pops I would wager. This says a lot about what we talk about often on this thread i.e. "what is, and what is not Jazz. I am absolutely sure, that as far as he was concerned, the music qualified as Jazz by some definition to which he had been exposed / taught . The guy also turned against other composers in order to please Stalin. Many of his peers went to the gulag, or the wall. Cheers |
*****
Where does Rok think that the concepts of harmony in jazz came from if not from the European "Classical" tradition? ***** We are not talking about harmonic concepts, we are talking about Jazz. Unless you are saying "harmonic Concepts" is the definition of Jazz. BTW, I don't Alex agrees with you as much as you think. Welcome back. Cheers |
Rok, there is no way I'm going to respond to anything, the "wire worshipers" utter. If I had not seen your post, I wouldn't be responding today; as a matter of fact, this post is not in response to anything. Mary Lou Williams was one of the greatest musicians ever. She had almost no formal training; at age 3 she picked out a melody while sitting on her mothers lap. She began earning money at the age of 6, when she was known as "The little piano girl" Duke Ellington said,"Mary Lou Williams is perpetually contemporary, her music retains and maintains a standard of quality that is timeless. She is like soul on soul". I could write a book about Mary Lou's qualities as a jazz musician, but I would rather present some of her music and let you be the judge. Yesterday, I received her CD, "Black Christ Of The Andes", and it's as awesome as any jazz written today; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNd-X2uMM1k What is your opinion of this timeless music. Enjoy the music. |
'We'd like to have you all join in with us on this one, and help us find the groove, by patting your feet, or popping your fingers, or clapping your hands, or shaking your heads, or shaking whatever else you want to shake... while we do a little thing we call "Filthy McNasty".
https://youtu.be/TTYtZa2XrDQ |
Filthy McNasty: Great tune and one of the great Tune Titles in Jazz. You can't beat Silver doing his tune, but I like this version a lot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD0a1Z4eiOU Cheers |
