Acman, Right off the bat this music started talking to me, why? Let's break it down in an objective manner to answer the question.
This music was released on the Italian Soul Note label in 1987. The fact that Mal Waldron came along with my favorite jazz musicians is part of the answer.
Although I'm trying to find an objective answer to that question, music is totally "subjective" to me; in other words it's all about what I feel.
I'm sure Mal Waldron is in my collection but only as a sideman.
I could possibly buy this music, it's deep. Change that to probably buy this music; this is the first time I've heard it.
Enjoy the music.
|
Although the musicians are top flight, I think it's Mal Waldron making the thing happen; like on a Mingus record, it's the spirit of Mingus that drives the music.
|
|
Beautiful Mal Waldron, Acman3 and Alex; thanks. O-10's reaction was exactly like mine. Seconds into the clip, I thought "Mingus meets Dolphy" (which he did many times). Mingus was a master at creating a feeling of deep earthiness and abandon in his music. Melodically it was deeply rooted in the Blues and, in that sense, very comfortable for the listener. Acman's clip evoked the earthiness of Mingus but with unusual melodic movement. I am not quite sure I agree that the sidemen are not equal partners in the creation of that feeling. Woody Shaw sounds amazing. As do the others; especially Ed Blackwell. Great record that I have to find. Thanks! Turns out that he was a fan of Mngus: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eldLh1E1sIAThe Jazz-crier mentions Freddie Hubbard. Probably my favorite jazz trumpet player. Sometimes his fire could come across as too much bravura; but, for me, as far as being able to "tell a story" with an improvised solo, there was and is no one better. There was a always a beautiful logic to the way he developed the improvised composition which a jazz solo is supposed to be. Just as with the spoken language and written words, an improvised solo needs to have clarity and good grammar and punctuation. Been listening to this record over the last couple of days. Herbie Hancock' debut solo record is one of my very favorite records. By the time a young lion got to record for a Blue Note as a leader the buzz about him on the scene is pretty intense. There was magic in the room for this record, imo. Freddie Hubbard sounds unbelievable as does Dexter Gordon. A lot of very clear story telling all around and the feel is wonderful. State of the art jazz-jazz: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aTUaWQULUQghttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7wcYrx4d3Jghttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HBLMPM8CeA4 |
Alex, I will acquire that music; Jackie Mac has many faces, and I liked this one a lot.
Ghosthouse, I liked the music submitted by Alex, which is an indication that the music you submitted wasn't that far off. That happens a lot with me in jazz; only in that instance I'll like a sideman, but when I get an album by the sideman, I could live without it; this is just the reverse.
Frogman, we are not saying anything different, in regard to the sidemen, but this is not face to face conversation where one can express different "nuances" in what they mean.
Enjoy the music.
|
This is what I mean by discovering old music that's new for me. I've never heard this fantastic tune by Abbey Lincoln; just out of curiosity, how many have heard this tune by Abbey before now? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7w8Wb5_aZAEnjoy the music. |
I'm still trying to find "new" new music, meaning current music that meets with our approval. Since we like "good" jazz, and collectively we seem to be of one mind, more or less, in regard to what is "good jazz". While me and Ghosthouse agreed that "Charlie Hayden and Jim Hall" was good jazz with the best of sonics; it was recorded live, and I couldn't take the applause. It seemed every time the music hit a high point, the audience would applaud. That broke my concentration and focus on the music too many times; good jazz or not, I had to pass. Now I'm reading Kenny Wheeler, "Songs For Quintet". It got 5 stars for performance, and 5 stars for sonics. If it's on "you tube" I'll get back to you. It seems Mr. wheeler has been around awhile, but I'm not familiar with him. Here are the goods on Mr. Wheeler. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenny_WheelerRight now I'm listening to "Canter No. 1" from that album mentioned above. This album has that "ECM" label sound, if you can identify with that. "Comme Ci comme ca"; I could take it or leave it, but it still got a very high rating from "Stereophile". If sonics is your thing, it's a buy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebLnzze7084Enjoy the music. |
A busy day, Gents. Just sitting down now with some music and catching up on the latest posts here. I will give a listen to the various links. Tough to keep up with them all!
BTW - The first 2 Mal Waldron links in Alex's post were blocked for me but I could access the Paco di Lucia. Thank you, Alex.
Thanks, all.
|
PS - okay...
Mal Waldron - The Seagulls of Kristiansund
Herbie Hancock - Takin' Off
Kenny Wheeler - Songs for Quintet
Paco de Lucia Sextet - Live
And that's not even EVERYTHING that got posted just today! I don't see how you all do it. That's a good couple evenings of listening...at least.
Thank you, though. None of it music I would have found on my own.
|
O-10, never heard "Left Alone" as done by Abbey Lincoln, but I have owned this version for many years. It is a beautiful tune; composed by Billie Holiday and Mal Waldron, but never recorded by her. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tBUNepCYH08I posted some Kenny Wheeler clips a while ago. Interesting player whose playing did not hold up well into his late career; as demonstrated by this recording. His early records are very good. In his prime he was a very good trumpet player with a brilliant sound and an interesting and fiery approach to improvisation. Not a "bluesy" player, and certainly not the most swinging player in the usual sense. He was perfect for the ECM house sound of modern jazz with rather vague tonal centers which give tunes an unresolved character; like one could hit "pause" at any point in the melody and it wouldn’t matter where. I like it, but it is definitely an acquired taste. My previous posts are from this record (from the 70’s): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tyzC2Rr4WAkhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL-H262sSAtenUhptN9UJupk21-ShplIZe&v=DaFnzKth4Ec |
|
Ghosthouse, most likely you will find the clips if you type the name of the album. Orpheus,speaking of Wheeler.... I bought this album 20 years ago,in Trieste, Italy. Overheard it in one cd shop, liked it and took it. There was no ytube than, but because of it I can better remeber some events that led me to some music. I am not a big fan of ECM music now, aldo there are exceptions. This is an album of a band, trio in fact, where Wheeler played. Azymuth, 'How was it then...never again' from 1994. https://youtu.be/yIzs92WTtNU |
Alex, I have many "ECM" records, only 1 CD that I can think of; for some reason I never play any of them. So the question is "Why did I buy them in the first place?" There are many things in that same category; bright yellow double knit bell bottomed slacks, with 3 inch cuffs; Why did I buy them, the moths don't even like them. Things of that nature are just another one of life's riddles. Azimuth - "The Tunnel" is interesting though it's on ECM and is typical of their music. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scJ_cSvgFBMEnjoy the music. |
Frogman, it's amazing; in order to appreciate Eric Dolphy, all we had to do was "listen". I liked that Eric Dolphy clip
Kenny Wheeler, forlorn and lost; like being in the middle of a dream that seems real, and you are in the middle of nowhere and don't know how you got there, or which way is home; then you wake up just before you lose your mind trying to figure things out. "Thank God that was just a dream".
I feel that bass; the tune comes to life after 5 minutes, and gets into a bag reminiscent of the 70's live music that I heard in clubs. I could possibly buy it, if I don't already have something similar. Top notch musicians, I recall all of them.
Enjoy the music.
|
****Kenny Wheeler, forlorn and lost; like being in the middle of a dream that seems real, and you are in the middle of nowhere and don't know how you got there, or which way is home; then you wake up just before you lose your mind trying to figure things out.****
O-10, I find it fascinating that your description of the feeling that Kenny Wheeler's music invoked is a perfect parallel to what I described:
****modern jazz with rather vague tonal centers which give tunes an unresolved character; like one could hit "pause" at any point in the melody and it wouldn’t matter where.****
What you described is exactly what happens harmonically and melodically in the type of compositions that Wheeler writes. The usual and normal tendency for harmony and melody to want to move in certain directions (resolve) is mostly absent; the music seems "lost" and "in the middle of nowhere".
|
I don't know what's going on, but we have had a very long string of music that I would give a thumbs up to; all of it very interesting, even if it was on the borderline for a buy, and none of it was "stereotypical"; that's music I've heard for 101 times. I'm submitting some music by a female vocalist that "stereophile" has raved about forever; that's automatically a thumbs down, I don't care for her vocals, but this time she got one thumbs up from me, her name is Patricia Barber. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi3i-HqDNFIEnjoy the music. |
If this has been posted before, please tell me. If it has been posted before, and I don't remember; that's simply a sign that I'm getting younger.
|
Although Milt Jackson is the undisputed king of the jazz vibraphone, Bobby Hutcherson holds his own. The fact that he was born in 1941, while Milt Jackson was born in 1923 helps a lot. Bobby's style is more modern than Milt's, which means he sounds "different"; that means the two of them are not so closely compared; I'll show you what I mean. The differences in the coast's they were born closest to, Milt; East Coast, and Bobby, West Coast; also attributed to a difference in styles and selection of music. When you hear the links I'm going to post, you'll hear how superb both musicians sound, and you may even want to challenge the fact as I have stated, that Milt Jackson is the undisputed king of the jazz vibraphone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUPBJPR4XJA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhgUUe5czxcThis time, you get to be the judge. Enjoy the music. |
"Undisputed"? Says who? By what criteria? As you point out, they have totally different styles. It’s like comparing Charlie Parker to John Coltrane. Two undiputed giants from entirely different evolutionary periods in the music. Who is better, Bird or Trane? Has no answer and is kind of a pointless question. Just as Bird would have sounded a little absurd trying to play "Giant Steps", Milt Jackson, as wonderful as he was, would sound out of place in a musical setting like that which was home for Hutcherson. Much more extended harmonic vocabulary and a move away from the very "swingy" feeling in the music. However, playing a slow blues, Milt Jackson couldn’t be touched, imo. So..... There’s a problem with the comparison clips. The Jackson clip is beautiful musically and sonically. The Hutcherson clip, to me, sounds a bit like a mess. Harold Land should have stuck to the saxophone; imo, his flute sounds terrible. I like his tenor playing, but he sounds like he picked up the flute a couple of weeks previously. Considering how often the flute plays, it practically ruins the entire performance. And it’s not as simple or isolated as the flute player being horribly out of tune. In a recording situation all the players are reacting to the "performance problem". It becomes a major problem in being able to relax and focus on the music, instead of having to deal with the tension and distraction of compensating for the problem. The end result is usually an inferior performance. This, imo, is a better showcase of Hutcherson’s strengths (and he was an infinitely better compiser than Jackson): https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLE4B0BF2407AEE1F5¶ms=OAFIAVgD&v=vbWiIf-kk98&mode=N...The alto player is someone who deserves more attention here, James Spaulding. |
|
|
Frogman, I was hoping for more responses, and I didn't think you would be the first one. But as some wise philosopher stated "We got to play the cards that we're dealt".
Milt Jackson vs Bobby Hutcherson; although I opened up the debate for fun, I'll pass on that one for all the reasons you stated; however, Bird is the undisputed king; he would have been able to play anything Trane played with ease, and his trolley never jumped the tracks musically.
Since Harold Land composed the tune, however he played it was the way it was supposed to be played, and "A Night In Barcelona" is one of my favorite tunes that Bobby Hutcherson plays.
It's interesting that you should pick a tune with the style that Milt Jackson absolutely excels in, that tune "Effi" is Hard Bop, and however well Bobby Hutcherson plays it, Milt would run rings around him.
I didn't understand that "Pretty obvious" statement, where Milt, and Bobby were playing together.
Those last two clips are very nice; I've got to add both those artists to my collection.
Enjoy the music.
|
O-10, I don't understand asking to be challenged and then not being the least bit open to a different point of view backed by concrete examples; if only to lead to interesting dialogue. Curious about and for the sake of better communication: what type of comment or content would pose a "challenge" as you suggested?
****Bird would have been able to play anything Trane played with ease****
No way. Could be interesting discussion, if interested. |
Ok Frogman; but first here's something with Bird and Milt, just to let you know that Milt could "Bop" with the best. (not the best recording quality) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9QDa3FnqwEIn regard to Bird and Trane, I don't quite know how we're to proceed; especially when I see "Bird" as the "undisputed" king. BTW got to make a run, don't expect an instant reply. |
I think a great place to start is by defining what "the undisputed king" means to you. King of what? As always, context is everything. The jazz language that Bird spoke was very different from what Trane spoke. Trane had a more exploratory harmonic language. Some would describe it as more advanced, more extended; certainly, more modern. The demands that what Trane was doing presented the player was much more rigorous and demanding, technically and conceptually, than what Bird did. Bird’s playing was very linear while Trane’s was very angular and harmonically more "outside" the tonal centers than Bird’s fairly "inside" language. This is not a put down of Bird in any way (how could it be?!), but all goes to the relevance of all that is the evolution of a music. Of course, relative to what came before Bird’s bebop, his language was a game changer; just as Trane’s would be a couple of decades later.
Great clip with Bird and Bags. From my vantage point, it makes my case perfectly. |
Frogman, you have attempted to give an objective answer to a subjective question. Your answers are meaningless to someone who doesn't speak the language; and in this case, there is no objective answer.
All music is "subjective"; why do think so few on this forum post on this thread? Alex thought there was something wrong with the thread that eluded him. After awhile it became apparent to me that there are so few on this forum who are "jazz aficionados".
What does all of what I just said have to do with "who is the King"? King of what? King of the saxophone? King of modern jazz? You got it, both.
Although the people on this forum don't know enough to consider themselves "aficionados", they know who Miles Davis is. His name is the most repeated name on this forum.
If the current top name in jazz, went to New York searching for "Bird", worshiped and almost idolized "Bird", what does that say about "Bird".
When he died; among aficionados, you would have thought the Pope died. I was in Chicago a year after he died, and saw "Bird Lives" scrawled all over the place. I'm sure it was the same in New York.
While the name "Trane" is held very high, the name "Bird" is held even higher.
Enjoy the music.
|
|
O-10, thanks for your comments. I didn't realize I was answering a question at all. In fact, my comments were made to point out, as I did previously, that "there is no answer". Milt Jackson may be the King for you based on your tastes, likes and dislikes, but "undisputed"? That is also subjective. Unfortunately, it appears the relevant points of discussion won't be adressed. We will simply have to agree to disagree on some of these points.
Btw, I think you shortchange others on this forum. There are many participants here who, for (I assume) various reasons, choose not to participate in this thread. I base that on comments I read made on other threads. Imo, it's always best to not make too many assumptions about what and how much one knows; personally, I prefer to focus on what I may not know. As someone who has been absent lately likes to say:
Cheers.
|
One of my favorite records. Imo, this record is a masterpiece. My favorite rhythm section ever. It had been Miles’ rhythm section for less than a year and the synergy between these three musicians is other-wordly. Tony Williams, a mere twenty years old, sounds unbelievable. Freddy Hubbard is brilliant as always. Herbie Hancock is a genius and up there with Bird and Coltrane as one of the most important figures in jazz; still going strong. This is one of those records that deserves to be listened to beginning to end as one musical statement. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X9FDt-IGgh4(Rudy Van Gelder eng.) |
|
Frogman; Alex posted yesterday at 5:17PM and you haven't responded, but you decided to post a "destructive" comment to me; it's been evident your only objective is to destroy this thread; I call it "jealously". Otherwise you would have started your own thread a long time ago.
That's part of your last post below.
Btw, I think you shortchange others on this forum. There are many participants here who, for (I assume) various reasons, choose not to participate in this thread. I base that on comments I read made on other threads. Imo, it's always best to not make too many assumptions about what and how much one knows; personally, I prefer to focus on what I may not know.
If you know so many participants who for various reasons choose not to participate in this thread, why don't you at least divulge the reasons; I'm sure you were sworn to secrecy and can not divulge the names.
That's the kind of snarky sh-t you have been posting for some time. What's your reply to this?
|
|
As above;
Parker and Coltrane were yin/yang, in the same spirit as, Hubbard/Davis.
|
Frogman, I was listening to "Bird With Strings" and it occurred to me that you had the audacity to compare Trane with Bird, insinuating that Trane might be better.
"Bird" is, was, and always will be in a league of his own. There were none before him, and there will be none after him. "Bird With Strings" is just as up to date this instant, as it was when he cut it, in 1949.
Your evaluation my dear sir, indicates you are in the "Junior League" of aficionados.
Enjoy the music.
|
O-10, I am not going down the same idiotic road that you seem to always want to take when there is a simple disagreement. Your assertions and accusations are simply childish. All I can say is that I hope you are able to be a little more mature about it all going forward. Please let me know how I can help. |
O-10, FYI, my comment about participants with other reasons had to do with the simple fact that I have read astute comments about jazz on other threads and from participants who don't post here. So.........there have to be "various other reasons"...no? You take these things WAY too personally; imo.
(Just one more reason why I tell my wife that I never want to retire) |
Frogman, I read where there are men on the moon; but I wont say where because I was sworn to secrecy.
Alex has been sincerely trying to find some answers, that you have, but will not divulge them.
Btw, I think you shortchange others on this forum. There are many participants here who, for (I assume) various reasons, choose not to participate in this thread. I base that on comments I read made on other threads. Imo, it's always best to not make too many assumptions about what and how much one knows; personally, I prefer to focus on what I may not know.
It sounds to me like you have a secret that others want to know, why don't you tell us why the multitudes of others refuse to post on this thread; that's an old trick.
Every Time things are running smooth on this thread you rock the boat.
Things were running smooth on page 148; that was too good for you wasn't it?
|
|
|
In regard to the question, "Why do some people start new threads for jazz questions?" Honestly, I don't know, but I can speculate in regard to some possibilities.
This might be the longest thread in the history of "Audiogon"; it's so big that people are intimidated when they try and get a feel for what it's about. That sounds like a very good reason to me. If they have a question, and start a thread asking the question they want answered, they are guaranteed of getting responses.
If you notice, this thread is comprised of regulars who have been on this thread since it's beginning on 02-24-2013. Occasionally we'll pick up a knowledgeable aficionado, and lose him after a few pages of quarrels that he has no interest in, and if they continue; he's gone for good.
Apparently Frogman knows how to get under my skin, and get a stupid argument going, because he does it quite frequently, and says "Who me?"
I stated that Milt Jackson is the undisputed king of the jazz vibraphone, actually hoping to open a discussion and ward off any serious debate; especially since Rok had already stated that Milt Jackson was the king.
As it happened, Frogman was the first responder, and there is nothing Frogman likes better than a good argument, and he wont quit with me until he gets one.
So much for that; back to a more serious question that Frogman claims to have the answer to "Why aren't there more posters on this thread?"
If you go through the music threads that date for a year, you will see very few relating to jazz, and even the one's you find will be very specific, and it will be obvious why they asked the question on a new thread, as opposed to coming here. That's my conclusion, if anyone has anything else, please share it.
Enjoy the music.
|
|
Alex, thanks for keeping things light and for bringing some humor to the proceedings here. Your clip asks an interesting question. I think the answer is best left for experts in a different field. Personally, I don't understand why measured and polite disagreement about one aspect of Jazz needs to go into the realm where a person feels that the disagreement is meant to be "destructive" of him. The psychology of all this is best left for others; but, for me, and to the extent that there can be an air of "friendship" on an Internet forum, it is a little sad. O-10, you are so far off base with your assesments of my motivations that it's probably hopeless as it has been in the past when things have come to a place like this. I continue to feel that this disagreement could be the stuff of really great discussion, but again, in spite of the fact that it was you who opened the door and welcomed in disagreement, you are not willing to consider any disagreement and drag things down into the mud. Please read over my comments again if you care; there are NO hidden meanings in any of them. Why you insist on making that assumption, well......best to keep the focus on the music. The disagreement has to do with the acknowledgment (or not) of the idea that jazz has been, is and always will be evolving. If we acknowledge that then there is, not only no reason to disagree, but no need to keep musical matters in the shallow range of simply who is best, who is "King", etc.. Can anyone possibly think that there will be agreement on that? Not only is there no chance of agreement, it keeps the discussion away from the juicy stuff (like the notion that "Bird could have played anything that Coltrane did"). Some interesting (for me) dot connection: Acman3, in the same spirit that Alex alluded to in his most recent contribution, posted some very funny clips of Gene Dancing Machine from the old "Gong Show" recently. As I'm sure others noticed also, the house band backing up Gene sounded great; especially the trumpet player who was playing some really good bebop solos. I set out to find out who that player was. It was Bob Findley, one of two legendary LA jazz/studio trumpet playing brothers (the other is the great Chuck Findley). Finding this out brought to mind a record that he plays on that I like very much. Alex, I have always loved Vince Guaraldi. Great clips and your description of his style is right on. I love the unabashed feel good, relaxed attitude in his playing; no hint of pretense or self importance. No surprise that his music for the "Peanuts" series is probably his best known work. The record that I refer to is unfortunately not available on YouTube; it is David Frishberg's aptly titled (for the moment) "Getting Some Fun Out Of Life". In a somewhat different style, Frishberg has a very similar attitude in his playing (and singing) which made me think of your Guaraldi clips. Fortunately, other things available on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EBbt3C1Y_mQhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N7hxDaJhnYshttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aNBj8xP83_s |
Acman, I've never heard this one; it's simplicity personified, "We don't need no more trouble". The lyrics and the music make you want to hang out on the beach under a coconut tree with some loving company.
Enjoy the music.
|
Frogman, if Trane were alive today, he wouldn't even back up your statement in regard to "Bird". I'm beginning to wander if you can really hear jazz, because apparently you haven't heard "Bird".
Have you read Miles Bio? Do you have any idea why "Bird" is idolized over Trane? Do you have any idea why "all" the jazz giants idolize "Bird"?
If Trane himself would not back up any of your statements where you place him over "Bird", then you must be lost in the woods.
|
If there had not been a "Charles Parker" there would not be a John Coltrane; he started out imitating "Bird" note for note; now what does that say about who's boss?
The proof of the pudding lies in the listening; some can hear, some can not; jazz is a very special music where you have to listen deeply to a number of phases intently to hear what musicians in each phase are doing. If you came into jazz exclusively in the "Coltrane Era", you may not be able to hear all the things "Bird" did.
Enjoy the music.
|
When You hear the beauty of this tune that was made in 49, and sounds as current as if it was made yesterday, you know why "Bird" is idolized. The way bird can riff over a slow easy going ballad is amazing; this tune is too beautiful for words. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmRkZeGFONgEnjoy the music. |
O-10, I’m sorry, but you really don’t understand; worse, you don’t want to understand. I have no issue whatsoever with you needing to feel that you are correct; the shame is that you don’t understand why it’s not a question of which is better. Again, please go over what I have written and note that I have not, at any point, said that I would "place Trane over Bird". That is just the simplistic place where you always want to take the issue: "who was better". The question was and remains whether (according to you) Bird could have played everything that Trane played. The answer is a resounding NO. The fact that Bird came before and heavily influenced Trane (and every other modern player) does, in no way, preclude the fact that Trane took improvisation to a place that Bird never did. Again, the nature of the art form. That does not make Trane "better". To understand this idea is to understand jazz. Personally, I wouldn’t worry so much about the "aficionado" designation; so, feel free to take that title away from me if it makes you feel better.
(Funny, when I read that word in the context of music as earthy and soulful as jazz, it always evokes an image of Hugh Heffner with a pipe in his mouth and some scantily clad bunny lurking in the background 😘). |
|
Frogman, I feel that I got sucked into a silly argument, that I didn't want to be in, in the first place, and now you cop out.
|
And what about this;
Btw, I think you shortchange others on this forum. There are many participants here who, for (I assume) various reasons, choose not to participate in this thread. I base that on comments I read made on other threads. Imo, it's always best to not make too many assumptions about what and how much one knows; personally, I prefer to focus on what I may not know.
These are your words, could you please expand on them; they allude to some mysterious reason others who are jazz aficionados choose not to participate in this particular thread; could you expand on your own words.
|
