Beautiful, together with pretty or soulfull or marvellous and similar expressions is adjective we often use to indicate something that we like. In this sense, often what is considerd beautiful was at the same time considered as 'Good'.
Still, we all must agree that ideal of beauty was different at certain time or place.That notion pehaps can lead us to another problem, which is relativism, as somebody could argue that concept of beauty can not be separated from context of time, historical periods and cultures.
On this pages, when we spoke about the music, we saw two different views, first is a thought that there must be a single rule of 'Beauty' valid for all music who tends to be considered as jazz or 'Good' and second principal that starts with notion that 'beautiful' music is not immutable and that depends on many different influences, but than it may not be called jazz, regarding to some.
So,I am wondering are we trying to distinguish what exactly is jazz music, or what is Beautiful music?
Does that means that all jazz music is 'Good' music?
This is in fact (pardon my simplification) philosophical question for thousands of years (definition of beautiful and good) but somehow it imposes self here again, because lots of times here there is not any explanation why is something considered as 'good' music and why it is not.
I have said something about my preferences, with few thouhts about 'tone and sound' , but it would be interesting to find out more about the subject from all participants here, if that would not be considered as boring or shallow?
So, gentlemen, the space is all yours, next time when somebody writes a critic thought, would be nice to say why somebody likes or dislikes something. Than perhaps, we could come to a point where we could express our thoughts about aesthetics and ethics and their connection in music and in general.
|
From a Jazz quotation site. I think you guys fall in the Wayne Shorter Camp.
- Wayne Shorter - "Music should not have any mandates. Jazz is not supposed to be something that is required to sound like jazz." [P]
WTF!!!! The truth of the matter:
- Jelly Roll Morton - "Jazz music is a style, not compositions; any kind of music may be played in Jazz if one has the knowledge."
What Morton means is, songs like "A closer walk with Thee", "Silent Night" "Shoo Fly" and Broadway Show Tunes, CAN BE Jazz tunes. It depends on how they are played. And since Morton CREATED Jazz, who are we to argue. :) Wayne's comment is ready made for 'fusion' and other Noise sources. It's really silly when you think about it. Esp since without SOUND, there is no music. How can what music sounds like be irrelevant to the music genre. I guess he was trying to be profound, or more probable, trying to justify his 'fusion' noise making. Cheers |
|
And here, ladies and gentlemen, we have, in the previous two posts, a perfect example of the "Mars and Venus" concept.
The irony is that Shorter and Morton are saying the exact same thing. The truth is that the "style" of jazz that Morton knew and played was a far cry from what Horace Silver, or Coltrane, or....would play decades later. So, Silver and Coltrane didn’t play "jazz"....I get it now. Unfortunately, as usual, some tend to see what they want to see in order to buttress a personal point of view. Generally speaking, points of view which can be summarized as 1. Inclusive, open minded, true to the spirit of boundless creativity in the music , or 2. Non-inclusive, closed minded, dogmatic, restrictive of that creative spirit. We can debate the relative merits of each viewpoint till we’re blue in the face; however, let’s take a look at some facts related to this thread:
Over the last several days there has been spirited and appreciative discussion and posting of jazz spanning a wide range of styles from the traditional to the non-traditional, including fusion Some has been liked by others (mostly) and some not so much. Importantly, there has been respect and appreciation shown towards others’ preferences and opinions. It is obvious that many here like and value "fusion" or whatever some of these styles anyone of us chooses to call certain music. My question is simple:
What positive purpose is served by calling the music that some of us clearly appreciate "noise"? None, I think; and, probably, negative ones. We are all free to be passionate about our preferences and express it any way we want, but by going down that road the chances of productive dialogue about a pretty deep topic are pretty slim. I would respectfully point out that in overlooking your own musical bias and trying to be profound yourself, you are missing the profundity in Shorter’s comment (and Morton’s, for that matter).
|
I was hoping that The Frogman would soon run out of straw. A very eloquent post that has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.
*****
The irony is that Shorter and Morton are saying the exact same thing *****
Jelly roll did not say all Jazz players had to play like he did, he said, Jazz is a style of playing music, and that any kind of music can be played in the Jazz style. This would include Silver and Coltrane and everyone else.
Boy you are death on straw men.
So, Please explain how,
"Jazz does not have to sound like Jazz"
And
"Jazz is a style of playing music"
Are saying the same thing.
Cheers |
Nah! This argument is as tired as stories about Grant Green; sorry. No straw man at all and I'm not looking for arguments. How's about we try a different approach? You can dismiss what I'm suggesting as pure bs, or you can consider everything that (I think) you know about me and other posters and give the matter some thought. |
Alex, as usual, a thoughtful post which raises some interesting questions.
****often what is considerd beautiful was at the same time considered as 'Good'.****
That may be true; often, but not always. Beautiful as far as what? is the question that needs to be asked. We have looked at players with beautiful tones, but tone is only one component of what may constitute good, or beautiful music. For me personally, while I very much appreciate beautiful tone, it is not necessary for me to consider music "good". Moreover, sometimes music which is beautiful in tonality can be not so beautiful and even ugly in other ways; sometimes the music calls for and needs tonality that is abrasive, even ugly to serve the musical intent or personality of the compiser or performer. Tone, by itself, says little about the music. Expression in music (the most important component) has much more to do with things that happen in the areas of rhythm.
****concept of beauty can not be separated from context of time, historical periods and cultures.****
Excellent comment and very true, and shows why, for any one listener, what determines whether music is "good" often has much to do with that listener's biases. The other key determinant is judgment of the level of craft of the composer or performer. While this judgment still has a subjective component, there are objective criteria that need to be met if music making can be considered "good". Just one example: How can the music of a player who possesses a great tone be considered "good" if his sense of rhythm is poor?
****am wondering are we trying to distinguish what exactly is jazz music, or what is Beautiful music****
Personally, I don't see much value in trying to distinguish what exactly jazz is. What, exactly, is that going to accomplish? I think that given the wide range of styles that have evolved from ROOTS in traditional jazz it is much more productive to distinguish what is beautiful music (not just in tonality). It is obvious that each "aficionado" draws a line for himself at which some evolved style stops being jazz. So why not, instead, focus on distinguishing good (beautiful) music from bad? Most of what is posted on this thread is unquestionably Jazz; some of it is not jazz for some. How anyone can claim to have that magic line for everyone else is beyond me; unless the aim is simply to prove everyone else "wrong", a pretty shallow objective, imo.
****Does that means that all jazz music is 'Good' music?****
No way!
****next time when somebody writes a critic thought, would be nice to say why somebody likes or dislikes something****
Precisely!
Thanks for a great post. |
Rok (and all aficionados), not an argument; just discussion by way of example: Is this "jazz" (from the "inventor" of jazz)?: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MkGjDbKauVoHow about this?: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JtQLolwNBywAnd how about this, from one of my favorite "fusion" records (whatever that is)?: https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLwhRKJUIQxKA5Do_m8Q5gvkvcMR-ZYSYu¶ms=OAFIAVgC&v=bYjfHv...I realize that one needs to accept the idea that jazz is a constantly evolving art form for this exercise to have some meaning; but, hopefully it can lay the groundwork for some discussion. I don’t think that there are many who would say that Miles’ "Nefertiti" is NOT jazz. Now, I hear a clear music "roots" connection between it and Wayne Shorter’s "The Three Marias". So, the question becomes: is Shorter’s music closer in "feeling" (like Jelly Roll said) to "Nefertiti" or more removed from it; as compared to the difference in feeling between Morton’s "The Crave" and "Nefertiti"? For me, there is a gulf of difference in the "feeling" between "The Crave" and "Nefertitti"; not nearly as great between "Nefertitti" and "The Three Marias". Just some food for thought. |
Just read an article about some guy who wears his baseball cap backwards, bringing electronic music to Cuba. Not a good way to start the day. Luckily I had this antidote handy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2MVmC55T5sCheers |
Listened to all three. The Crave was the best by far to my ear. The other tunes were not compelling.
They all sounded like Jazz to me. The Shorter album has electronic instruments if memory serves. I have it on LP. But I didn't hear any on the tune you posted. It was OK. He has done a lot better.
I think I have to remember that the artist hear themselves everyday. People like me, hear them every now and then, and I mean on CD. The music is always fresh and new to me. But I think the players get tired of playing the same stuff, in the same way, and they like to explore and try new things. Some stuff works, for the Jazz unwashed, and some does not.
You call this the natural progression of the music. I don't consider it natural at all. I think of it as being forced. Natural is as easy as falling off a log. And, it takes time.
If all Jazz players retired when they felt they were out of ideas, there would be no fusion. But they have to earn a living, and of course they want to stay in the public's eye. Go with the flow.
Not surprisingly, Miles and Shorter sounded more akin to each other than did Morton.
Cheers
|
*****
next time when somebody writes a critic thought, would be nice to say why somebody likes or dislikes something*****
I will, as soon as I am able to explain to myself, why I like Ice Cream, and Chocolate, and LvB's 9th, or don't like Rock or Stravinsky, or Berg etc.........
Cause I do. Or Cause I don't. If you can explain it, you are trying too hard.
Cheers |
Needless to say, I don't agree at all with the idea that it is forced. Many creative artists (not all) are always looking for new ways to express themselves, and as has been said countless times, art always reflects the time of its creation. I believe you have exactly backwards; it would be "forced" if the creative spirit were held back to reflect only the past. That doesn't mean that there isn't valid and great music being played currently that does reflect the past (Wynton). There is obviously also a lot of contemporary non-fusion jazz being created.
****If all Jazz players retired when they felt they were out of ideas, there would be no fusion****
A very strange comment. The move towards "fusion" (or whatever; remember, it doesn't have to be electric to be fusion) IS the new idea in a broad sense. Shorter's "The Three Marias" is unquestionably fusion; not electric, but rhythmically closer to a rock groove than the typical swing rhythm.
Anyway, simply more proof that trying to put a label on it simply takes away from the focus on whether it is good music or not. You like "The Crave"; so do I. I like "Nefertiti" too, and I feel no need to deem one better than the other. "The Crave" is infinitely more accessible; "easier" to take in with its tunefulness and simple rhythm. "Nefertiti" is far more abstract with far more sophisticated harmonies. Is one "better" than the other? Not in my book. Here in Brooklyn we have Brooklyn style pizza: old-school stick to your ribs, to the point, cheesy, pepperoni pizza. We also have brick oven baked, thin crust, fresh mozzarella and pancetta pizza. Which do I eat? Depends on my mood that day. Which is "better"? Hell if I know; or care. |
****If you can explain it, you are trying too hard****
I don't think so. One could just as easily say "if you can't explain it ON SOME LEVEL you're not trying hard enough". However, I wouldn't say that and put that judgmental slant on it. And THAT goes to a lot of the disagreement here. As with jazz, there are a lot of different styles of expression. |
|
Nat Adderley:
Excellent! Just don't ask me why. "Loneliness" really expresses the title of the tune. I will have to get Little Big Horn.
One of the few Cornet players in Jazz.
Cheers |
Glad you like it, for a such hard headed man you have a good taste. I think I might have posted this earlier, but I could not resist, another great ('official' approval must come from Frogman), but overlooked horn player on splendid album. Howard Mc Ghee quartet on 'Maggies back in town' from 1961. https://youtu.be/nilp-xPq0Y0 |
I have been searching and searching for some good fusion music. The Lord knows I have tried. I did find this. Fusion of a sort. My kind of fusion. The best kind of fusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK0X9J_pX8wWynton in the Trumpet section, would have been perfect. Cheers |
|
|
|
|
Isn’t it curious that in spite of there being little (if any) "fusion" posted recently, it is the listener who doesn’t like it who keeps bringing up the topic. Why it also has to be done with derision is also curious, but a different topic altogether. Equally curious is that what is posted instead are the same clips that have been posted several times previously. Clips of Wynton and Clapton are as tired as those of that other guitar player.....what was his name? ☺️ I think "hard-headed" is accurate; as far as the "good taste" part goes......let’s just say that there are different flavors of Kool-aid. The first time I saw the Wynton/Clapton clips my reaction was, and to quote that same listener, WTF! Clapton is an iconic aging rocker and Brit blues player who, for some reason, has lost the fire in his playing. Talk about pandering to the "great unwashed" with his presence there! In the company of good (mostly, and more on that later) jazz players playing the blues, he sounds mediocre at best. Ironically, the two headliners are the weakest soloists in that band. This makes a good segue to the subject of Nat Adderly: I have always been a fan of Nat Adderly. As suggested by Alex, I WILL (😉) explain why I like his playing. Adderly was a player with a great rhythmic feeling and sense of swing; that was his calling card. He was great within his comfort zone of the relaxed, bluesy tunes, ballads and funky tunes with uncomplicated harmonic changes and medium tempos. In that respect it can be said that his playing was limited compared to players with much more advanced and expansive harmonic vocabularies like Miles, Morgan and Hubbard; but, great feeling! What Adderly had in spades is precisely what Wynton doesn’t have; and, vise versa. Adderly was great at telling a story in his soloing or even just playing the melody of a ballad, but had problems as an instrumentalist; he was very inconsistent as a trumpet player, especially later in his career. Wynton is a monster trumpet player who doesn’t play with a convincing feeling. Of course it needs to be remembered that this is all in comparison to the best players in the music. Adderly’s problems with his "chops" are well known among jazz brass players. These were the result of bad playing habits and/or bad teachers and which can result in things like callouses on the lips; problems that resulted in "blowing his chops out". Look at this clip and notice the tense embouchure (lips) and posture with the raised shoulders, and the pointing down of the horn while seeming to be squeezing out the high notes; all a recipe for chop problems: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MmwsQ_dHrFMContrast this with Clark Terry in the previously posted clip; a model of relaxed embouchure and posture even when playing in the upper register. This relaxed quality also allowed him to use "circular breathing" for incredibly long phrases without having to breathe: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3AvImcsbt1UThis has been posted previously. Some favorite Nat Adderly from one of my very favorite records (notice the Miles influence in the muted trumpet playing); great feel!: https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYUN_lOOl3TXtUiOmKhMHgHy0YR4o3F6MLastly, I think that the only "antidote" that is really needed in this endless debate about the merits of the traditional vs the untraditional in jazz is to continue to point this out: There is no argument, and never has been, with the idea that we all have our preferred styles of music and that there is no reason that anyone HAS to like anything other than what they do like; simple as that. However, most curious of all to me is how someone who can’t even take a stab at explaining why something is liked or not can have the huevos to completely dismiss in a judgmental way the musical direction that musical giants like Herbie Hancock and Miles chose for themselves as artists and, in the process, stripping them of the sense of integrity toward the music that they so rightly deserve. Curious indeed. |
Down in Mississippi, the old folks used to say, "there is such a thing as too much education".
Cheers |
Fusion:
{a union by or as if by melting: as a : a merging of diverse, distinct, or separate elements into a unified whole}
My posts were examples of the FUSION of Spirituals, Blues, R&B, Rock, Jazz, Opera and Classical styles of music and playing. Also, a dash of Bluegrass. It's a shame you couldn't hear it.
I guess it just didn't fit with what you learned in Jazz School.
Cheers
|
|
Frogman, that was interesting and educative post. Thanks.
|
C'mon Rok, now you're really being silly. What on earth does any of what you just posted have to do with what I wrote. I am well aware of the types of "fusion" that you were referring to. The problem (as if you didn't know) is the general disrespect shown by you towards those who find value in fusion and other musics that you don't like and the artists who play it. You insist on going down that negative road and then you don't want to be called out on it. Re "education" and old folks in MS: best not to go there. I have some interesting jazz-jazz to post soon (and some fusion). Cheers.
|
Acman, on first listen, it kind of reminded me on this,in a way... Dutch group called 'Focus', album made few years before... https://youtu.be/cCBMPdqDAS0 |
****
Frogman, that was interesting and educative post. Thanks. *****
Does that mean you like Nat Adderley more or less than you did before the "interesting and educational" post?. Do your ears now bleed when you hear Wynton? What impact does it have on your taste in Jazz?
Allow me:
It has no impact what so ever. Music is an emotional thingy, just like all Art. Critical analysis does not change how it affects a person, it's just nice to know information, good for academic study, or conversation over drinks. Nothing more.
Damn, you people are hard headed!!
Cheers |
****Critical analysis does not change how it affects a person,****
Absolutely not true; and certainly not true for everyone. Depends on the individual. The important distinction is that some individuals have an innate aversion to critical analysis. This fact in no way means that it is the case for everyone; and critical thinking and analysis can, in fact, have a profound impact on an individual's emotional reaction to art (and many other things). Some individuals are fearful of and feel threatened by the idea that there are things that they don't know or understand, and feel comfort and security in the idea that what they do know and understand is the only thing of value; like the old folks in MS. |
Of course that I like him just as same.
But, have you ever asked yourself, why do you like something?
I did, many times, for many different things and levels.
In fact, that is very important question everyone should ask himself.
More questions and answers, more self consciusness.
Music is not equal as 'all Art', but that could lead us to even bigger debate in trying to determine what art is. Still, could be interesting?
Music (or art) has only an emotional impact on you, but not necessarily for somebody or everybody else.
Some things are perceptive thru mind or ratio only, but that does not stops us to appreciate them. Even more, when you first understand something, you may find the inner beauty of it, and than like it, like you did not before.
There are many examples for it, not just in Art.
I hope you would not get offended, but I expected more introspective thinking, because you seemed like a person with a big life expirience
|
On one of my earlier post the main point was, say you don't like a musical period, lets say fusion, and you don't learn the language, because why should you; You HATE fusion. Years later you may miss out on a great guitarist like John Abercrombie, because the language sounds foreign, because he is rooted in the time you skipped, and all subsequent variations are also. First, the orignal music by Bass Desires. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJV0IuwNi_4Next, the same tune, obviously different because of Michael Brecker with Abercrombie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfCgD8x2jiMIf Kenny Burrell or early Jim Hall are your reference, you may not get Abercrombie. The only reason I keep mentioning this is , it seems at least to me , at the core of our continual, circular, fights. And why some people hate everything since Glen Miller. I know this sometimes limits me personally, when I listen and don't get what others are raving about. I remember playing Jack Dejohnette's "New Directions " all night while I slept for about a week. I started to get what was going on slowly, but surely. Now, because I was so Anti Rap/Hiphop, I don't get some of the new Jazz music which is rooted in the language and rhythms of that period and I can only blame myself !!! Win some, lose some! Hope this makes some sense to someone. Alex, Focus was great rock band, but my brain divides them differently. Maybe the bluegrass side of the Dreg's????? Maybe I need to listen again???? |
On second thought I can hear Jim Hall in Abercrombie, Scofield and Frisell.
|
Acman, did not tryed to make any point, only, just as I heard your clip, I thought about 'Focus' and I have not listened them since high school.
|
*****lets say fusion, and you don't learn the language, because why should you; You HATE fusion. Years later you may miss out on a great guitarist like John Abercrombie, because the language sounds foreign, because he is rooted in the time you skipped, and all subsequent variations are also.*****
Actually at one time I had more Fusion than Jazz-Jazz. Looking at the printout of my Jazz albums on LP, I see that I had more Chick Corea and Crusaders than Ellington. More Al Di Meola and Pat Metheny than Horace Silver. More Dave Grusin Than Count Basie. More Weather Report than Lee Morgan. No Basie at all. I read the printout now, and can't believe it.
So, I didn't skip anything, I was just exposed to the real deal at a later date. In retrospect, it was probably better that way.
Cheers |
So, it appears as if you guys went from Jazz-Jazz to Fusion, while I went from Fusion to Jazz-Jazz.
Cheers |
acman3,
Bass Desires. Never heard it. Listened to both versions and like them both. Like "dayum, this is some good sh*t" sort of like.
Your point about taking the time to "learn the language" is a wonderful one. Jazz musicians are well known for trying new ways to express their music. Often times their music is met with outrage. Classical composers too.
I'm sure there were time that when Jelly Roll Morton played women fainted, men got angry and the newspapers reported that blasphemy had taken place at the club downtown.
-- Bob
|
acman3, I know you've probably heard this before, but here's another tune featuring the bass laying down the foundation of the tune. Not good quality, but listenable. -- Bob Oscar Peterson Trio, "Nigerian Marketplace." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJplKSrRbxQ |
It appears my hypothesis has already proven to be false, and I was ready to make it a theory, if not a law. :)
Thanks for the Oscar Peterson, a great record by a great group.
|
Some excellent posts and commentary recently; thanks everyone. Acman3, that Weather Report live clip is amazing; I had not heard that previously. Probably my favorite lineup in that band with Jaco and Peter Erskine (who sounds amazing). Fusion that for me captures the spirit and feeling of jazz without having to apologize for not being jazz-jazz. You beat me to the punch with the Dixie Dregs clip; they were going to be part of my 1978 list. I like your description of them as a possible "gateway band" to jazz. For anyone who cares about this sort of thing and to show the influences that come into play, that band was started by jazz students at the University Of Miami School Of Music (my alma mater) and was first called the U of M Rock Ensemble. Speaking of Ro(c)k:
Rok, not intended as further argument, but simply dialogue about some interesting topics and related to comments that you made and in no way intended to try and change your mind about anything:
****It has no impact what so ever. Music is an emotional thingy, just like all Art. Critical analysis does not change how it affects a person, it's just nice to know information, good for academic study, or conversation over drinks. Nothing more.****
I've already expressed my feelings about this topic, allow me to use an example to make my point:
You are absolutely correct, it is an emotional thingy; however, I recall commenting on and sharing music by the great Paul Desmond and pointing out to you something in the music that you had not noticed before. In the arrangement of a particular ballad there was a point when Desmond, while soloing, reacts to the orchestration and "answers" the musical line that the woodwinds in the orchestra play with the same musical figure, but now incorporated in his improvised solo. I also recall that your reaction was "I burst out laughing when I heard that!" Now, if that is not an emotional reaction as a result of critical analysis then I don't know what is. I'll take it a step further:
We have also discussed "quotes" in improvisations; something that, as far as I can tell, was also something that you had not noticed previously. Well, much later and after first discussing this, I noticed comments by you re clips that you posted about musical "quotes" in those clips. Are you trying to say that the recognition of these quotes have no impact on your emotional reaction to this music; that your experience with the music is not enhanced by that recognition?
Cheers |
By critical analysis, I was speaking of making a judgement of the tune and / or the playing.. BTW, I always recognized 'quotes', I just never knew they were intentional or accepted as a part of Jazz. I thought of it as plagiarism.
Cheers
|
Not meaning to argue and just looking for clarity in order to avoid argument, but I'm confused. Making a judgment without explaining is simple opinion; no? Seems to me that critical analysis, what you say has no value as far as the enjoyment, or not, of something is explaining the reasons why and how that judgment was made. What am I missing? ****just never knew they were intentional or accepted as a part of Jazz. I thought of it as plagiarism.**** How is quoting "Mona Lisa" in the context of an improvised solo NOT intentional? 1978: if I absolutely had to pick one, probably my favorite tenor player. He quotes "Mona Lisa" @ 1:12. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd1GIN83fNw |
|
*****
What am I missing?*****
As Usual, everything.
*****
Not meaning to argue ****
Of course you are. That statement ranks right up there with "it's not about the Money".
*****
Making a judgment without explaining is simple opinion; no? *****
Making a judgement with or without explanation, is opinion. The Supreme Court hands down 'Opinions'. BTW, Explaining something does not change what it is..
I think it's possible, in the middle of playing improvised music, to play a few notes that have been played before in the same order in another popular tune. Intention would depend on the length of the passage played. A few notes might be an unintentional, subconscious 'quote', too many notes, and you are playing Mona Lisa.
Cheers
|
Well gee, Rok, thank you for the reasoned and intelligent response. I realize that the concept may be completely foreign to you, but I really have no interest in arguing with you; simply trying to make sense of the non-sensical.
****I think it’s possible, in the middle of playing improvised music, to play a few notes that have been played before in the same order in another popular tune. Intention would depend on the length of the passage played. A few notes might be an unintentional, subconscious ’quote’, too many notes, and you are playing Mona Lisa.****
Sorry, way off base. If you care to have reasonable and intelligent dialogue about this subject let me know. |
|
VSOP Live made me think of this; one of my favorite live jazz recordings. One of the most gorgeous and evocative jazz tenor tones ever. Stan Getz paired with Bill Evans makes sense in many ways; introspective, soft tone and emphasis on creating beautiful melodies when improvising. Great record: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xh3IMWzF_s |
****I think it’s possible, in the middle of playing improvised music, to play a few notes that have been played before in the same order in another popular tune. Intention would depend on the length of the passage played. A few notes might be an unintentional, subconscious ’quote’, too many notes, and you are playing Mona Lisa.****
I vowed not to return to this thread, but merely to observe. There is no way I could pass this up, especially after Rok made one of the most reasoned and true statements of his career, and this is your response.
"Sorry, way off base. If you care to have reasonable and intelligent
dialogue about this subject let me know."
When "Bird", the worlds greatest improviser ever, quite often threw in a few notes from some well known popular song, unintentional, or intentional, and you said Rok's statement was unreasonable; just who made you judge, jury, and executioner, of this thread?
Enjoy the music.
|
I knew you’d be back, O-10, and belueve it or not, I was hoping you would be; I’m only sorry that you didn’t come back with a more reasonable and positive attitude. If you, like Rok, are looking for another fight, please look elsewhere. I stand by my comments. As usual, the desperate see (and hear) what they want to see. Like Rok, you are responding, not in a reasoned way, but in a way that you feel somehow proves that you are correct and I am incorrect; and nothing more. What you and Rok don’t understand about this subject is that NOTHING that players like Bird played was unintentional; and, certainly not musical quotes. The idea that it might be unintentional is way off base; and, frankly......well, I'll stop there. Welcome back; I think.
|
*****
just who made you judge, jury, and executioner, of this thread?*****
I think he is self-appointed.
*****
you are responding, not in a reasoned way, but in a way that you feel somehow proves that you are correct and I am incorrect; and nothing more.*****
This is called 'projection' by the mental health folks.
Welcome back O-10. A thread needs it's OP.
In the Bible, Job got affliction and pestilence, we got The Frogman. But like Job, we will survive this testing.
Cheers
|
