On the off chance I'm being called out as one who didn't respond and to whom the Ammons/Swinging for Benny sounds strange. I'm actually enjoying it. A lot more interesting than some of the (for me) snooze session "jazz jazz" that gets posted [snooze inducing whether or not performers are wearing jackets and ties].
Thought the below was interesting...assuming the reviewer posting on Amazon knew what they were talking about. Anyone know who played piano on this? Nice lead in solo. Of course, enjoyed the trombone solo. Anyone other than me think the extended sax solo by whoever takes over at 5:40/5:41 has moments of Coltrane? Not sure if it's all one sax player or two of them trading off during the last 3-4 minutes.
Recorded by Vee-Jay records in 1959 under the title of THE SWINGIN'EST - BENNIE GREEN and re-issued in 1961 as Gene Ammon's JUGGIN' AROUND. It is currently available on CD under the Bennie Green title. It's a septet session with Bennie Green, Gene Ammons, Frank Wess tenor sax and flute, Nat Adderley and Frank Foster in the front line backed by the usual piano led rhythm section. The picture of a younger Gene Ammons, with a white mouthpiece, has nothing to do with his playing here and probably eminates from his tenure with the Woody Herman Band in the late 1940's or early 1950's
|
How unfortunate. Sorry, O-10, I don't play those games and consider that approach to be childish and small minded; so, I will continue to address you if I feel the need to and you are then free to ignore me if you wish. As always, hoping for better vibes. |
Ghosthouse, I've got those albums; it may take awhile for me to find them, but I'll get on it.
"jazz jazz" is just like any other genre of music; some good, and some not so good, choose the best and leave the rest.
I'll see what I can find,and in the meantime;
Enjoy the music.
|
Ghosthouse, the piano player is Tommy Flanagan. There are actually three tenor players on the date: Jug, Frank Wess and Frank Foster. The two Franks were the two tenor players in Basie’s band during that period. While the two of them had very similar styles (especially during that period; Foster moved more to a contemporary sound later on than Wess), you are correct, the tenor solo at 5:40 is by Frank Foster and he would definitely be the one most likely to invoke Trane. All three "trade fours" during the last couple of minutes. The solo order of the three tenors at the beginning of the tune is: Jug, Wess @ 2:00, Foster @ 4:05. Very swinging session. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jQKTRIiVdbQ |
Ghosthouse, this is "jazz Jazz" that's too cool for words; "Ham Hock Blues"; now you know with a title like that, this is the real deal, I know Rok, can tell us all about dem ham hock blues. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yosa8uF6myUPass the corn bread, and don't go light on the beans. |
Thanks Frogman. Well, I’m gonna pat myself on the back a little. I thought that might be Tommy Flanagan though given how shallow my depth of jazz knowledge is, it could easily have been someone else. On the other hand, to me, he seems to have a clearly recognizable style ...very economical and tasteful; elegant even. Less is more. He plays on that Wes Montgomery recording that Acman or Alex recommended (I get foggy which of the two names starting with A! :-). He also played on that live recording (with WM) that Rok had recommended. How do you know so much about the details of that Swinging for Bennie cut? "trade fours" means to take turns doing 4 bar solos?? That doesn’t sound like very much time if I’m right about it. Must be multiples of 4 bars per solo??? Basie is another big name I know next to nothing about. That is some impressive soloing on that cut. It has a hint of something more avant that I’d expect. What I wouldn’t give for a time machine to travel back and see these guys in person. Not just talkin’ the 2 Franks but many from a roughly 3 decade period...40s - 60s. https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/music/frank-wess-jazz-saxophonist-with-the-count-basie-...https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/frank-foster-dynamic-saxophonist-who-led-basie-band-..."Mr. Wess came from the old school of jazz, where a sense of soul-stirring swing was what mattered most.
’If you can’t tap your foot or dance to it, you may as well be driving a cab,” he said in 2005. “That’s what it’s all about.’ ”
Sounds vaguely familiar, don’t it. And some more good stuff! "Mr. Foster played the band’s traditional favorites, but he also introduced many new and more thorny works that were not as popular. ’The old school says they’re tired of hearing the new stuff,’ he told the Los Angeles Times in 1995. ’They don’t understand that musicians have to be constantly challenged or you lose them. . . . I’m on the side of those who like newer things.’ ” Me too. |
*****
On the other hand, to me, he seems to have a clearly recognizable style ...very economical and tasteful; elegant even. *****
Sounds like a critic /academic to me. I would never buy a CD because someone said it was 'economical' or 'elegant'.
*****
’They don’t understand that musicians have to be constantly challenged or you lose them. . . . I’m on the side of those who like newer things.’ ” *****
By 1995 We had already lost most of the ones that really counted. Lost to that thing called death. You should be on the side of great music, recent or vintage.
Cheers
|
Ghosthouse, me too. I think we got our wires crossed a bit, though; my bad. When you referenced the reviewer on Amazon who pointed out that the record was reissued as "Juggin Around" my brain went to the title cut of that record. The personell is, of course, the same but the solo order that I mentioned is for the tune "Juggin Around" from that session: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JR0WWhRgzrgOn "Swinging With Benny", Frank Wess plays flute and only two tenors play, as you pointed out, Jug and Foster. Yes, "trading fours" means trading four measure solos. Btw, "elegant" and "economical" is the perfect description of Tommy Flanagan's style; very appropriate. And good for you for recognizing Tommy Flanagan's style. |
*****
Btw, "elegant" and "economical" is the perfect description of Tommy Flanagan's style; very appropriate. And good for you for recognizing Tommy Flanagan's style.*****
Of course 'elegant' is in the ear of the listener, and 'economical' could stem from the fact old Tommy did not have much to say. I guess we could be thankful for that.
Cheers |
|
Nice! Yup, elegant and economical. Thanks for the great clip, Acman3.
Tommy Flanagan's obituary in NY Times:
"Tommy Flanagan, elegant jazz pianist, is dead at 71"
|
Alex, really liked the Dick Garcia clips; thanks for that. Very nice player that is new to me; you did it again. Biggest surprise for me was Bill Evans playing in a very harmonically "inside" and swingy style. Much of his recorded work has shown a harmonically complex vocabulary in his improvised lines and harmonies, surely and in part a result of his affinity for the Impressionist composers (Ravel, Debussy) as you pointed out a while ago. On this clip he keeps things much more simple harmonically and even the very swingy feel here has his usual sense of understatement. Great to hear Tony Scott on clarinet on "Have You Met Miss Jones".. Like Hambro, one of those guys who was a hero to the players but never gained much public recognition. The clarinet doesn't get too much love on this thread unfortunately. The greatest bebopper on the clarinet: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ntzKLE9BwVs |
I don't know what jazz is, but I know it when I hear it, I also know you can not learn it in anybody's school; not even the best in the country.
My kind of jazz began with "Be Bop"; that's what "Bird," Dizz, Monk and a few other musicians worked on before Miles; he came to New York looking for Bird.
It's a funny thing, but none of them liked to call their music "Be Bop", but they had to call it something, why not "Be Bop". Although that's what made them famous, when they played music from the heart, meaning music that emanated from deep down in the soul, it
didn't even sound like "Be Bop". That's the music we call "Jazz", we had to call it something.
I also know they wanted a type of music that couldn't be stolen; music from the inner depths of the soul couldn't be stolen. I might call it "Geist" music, because a guy named Hegel spent his entire life trying to explain the soul in print, but he never succeeded.
Since he couldn't do it in a lifetime, I certainly can't explain it in a post; but I believe I understand it as well as Hegel. I'm sure he understood it too, but just couldn't put it in writing. That's what the jazz men were after; something that couldn't be put in writing, and patented. They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams; that's what this thread is about, and that's why we keep hoping and praying that some new musicians will come along and give us what they gave us, but it ain't happening; so I say, until that time;
Enjoy the music.
|
The Straw Man: ooops errrrr, I mean The Frogman:
*****
"Tommy Flanagan, elegant jazz pianist, is dead at 71"*****
I'm sure they were speaking of the person, not his music. After all, it was an Obit,
he was dead, not his music.
Of course you know this.
Cheers |
|
Ok, Rok, if you insist:
From the obit:
**** Tommy Flanagan, a jazz pianist who with a classic trio set a high standard for elegance in mainstream postwar jazz, ****
Obit, The Guardian:
**** Inventive and elegant jazz pianist as fluent as the stars he accompanied ****
From Wiki:
**** After leaving Fitzgerald again, Flanagan attracted praise for the elegance of his playing ****
Jazzhouse.org:
**** Tommy Flanagan was as lucid, refined and swinging a pianist as any in the history of jazz and emerged as one of the most elegant and fully rounded interpreters in jazz . ****
Concord Music Group:
**** and, perhaps above all, an impeccable, imperturbable, and unerringly elegant sense of ...****
Let me know if you need more.
|
Elegant: Of a high grade or quality.
Merriam-Webster
Given that definition, every Jazz player of any reputation at all, could be considered 'elegant'. In Flanagan's case, They probably meant he played in an unobtrusive manner. Didn't disrupt their conversations, as they sipped their cocktails
As Fats Waller said, "They like Jazz, but in small doses". He was speaking of the good folks of the NYC 'elites'. You be one???
Let me know if you need me to 'explain' anything else for you.
Cheers |
Killer Joe:
I first heard this on the 'Walking in Space' LP by Quincy Jones. I always thought it was his tune.
Reminds me of the time when I didn't know the word Jazz, but I heard artist such as Sarah Vaughan, Cannonball Adderley, Jimmie Smith, Quincy Jones, Dinah Washington and Ramsey Lewis etc..... on the Jukebox in the local bar.
Loved the pictures of the musical instruments on 'Along Came Betty'. What's more beautiful than a closeup of a new Tenor sax.
The Jazztet sure dressed 'funny'. I guess they didn't have time to get their cutout jeans and tank tops out of the cleaners.
Great Clips.
Cheers
|
It boggles the mind how someone who professes to be such a "protector" of jazz is blind to the fact that he lets his own need to be "right", not only abandon all logic and reason, but lets that need undermine the very thing that he claims to love so much. To dismiss or, at minimum, downplay the accolades directed at one of the greatest practitioners of the art form (Flanagan) in order to somehow gain some personal validation is pathetic. Not to mention the harm that is done when interacting in this way, instead of keeping things positive and forward looking, with other listeners and especially with eager and thoughtful new explorers of the music. I am sorry to say that, as far as I am concerned, the only "protecting" that jazz needs is from "fans" like you, Rok.
Cheers, indeed. |
We are not talking about Flanagan. We are talking about the meaning of the word 'elegant' as used to describe a musician's style of playing. The word as it would be used in a music review.
I bet no one ever 'accused' Art Tatum of being 'elegant'. Mingus? But I'm sure you will find a NYT's article from 1940s that does just that.
Please try to stay focused and stop it with the Straw man stuff. I speak English. If I want to say something, I will say it in plain English. No?
Cheers
|
|
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a 'protector' of Jazz. Impossible task and very presumptuous.
The music has passed me by. I accept that. Thank God for LPs and CDs. Although all the players are long gone, most anyway, I can still enjoy their music.
When one of my Aunts passed away several years ago, she was in her 90s, she wanted me to have her music player because she knew I liked music. It was one of those big consoles with built in single speaker with Radio and a 78rpm record player under the top lid. As much furniture as anything.
When I opened the top, there, on the platter, was a 78rpm record by Duke Ellington. I just smiled. The music passed her by also. Her music was Ellington, Basie, Cab Calloway, Fats Waller, The International Sweethearts of Rhythm etc........
I have many pictures of her and my mother at dances while Big Band groups played. Everyone dressed to the nines. Probably was not even aware that people like Coltrane and Miles existed.
My point in all this? She stayed with the stuff she was exposed to during her young days. I do the same. We all do.
There is nothing to protect. The young can no more relate to my music than I can to theirs.
Cheers |
Frogman and others,its quite true that we have not mentioned much clarinet players. In fact, must admit that I am aware of only few. Buddy DeFranco,as you have mentioned comes first on mind. Here are couple more albums. Art Tatum with Buddy DeFranco, from Tatum’s group masterpieces vol.7 https://youtu.be/wHG_Hpe64BQ?list=PLHrfyotDyFxJzsucdbZvIOISKkQ7s3pPCBuddy DeFranco septet ’Live Date’ from 1959. https://youtu.be/Hr2thPNb5_k Its going to be very hard to find that ’Live’ album, but it is published almost entierly on ’Generalissimo’compilation https://youtu.be/OBeA2RiFznIhttps://youtu.be/NihudzS3oM8There are many more nice Buddy DeFranco’s albums, from 50’s, few with Sonny Clark on piano Tony Scott’s albums are also little bit difficult to find, this one could be used as starting point. Copmilation,with Bill Evans, named ’A day in New York’ https://youtu.be/4WObMpeeDWsHere is another name, believe not very known any more, but he played with Ellington and Armstrong, among many others Its Barney Bigard Here is a nice swing album, with him Webster and Carter https://youtu.be/PtmQg7LBAsI |
Somebody said that when you go older you start to think that before the politicians were more honest, that prices were more reasonable and that young ones respected their elders. Well, I am 43 and already have that feeling. (except for politicians part)
But, truth to be told, somehow I do think that even in time when jazz was created, there were not many people who were devoted listeners.
Its a great pitty and maybe even a mystery to me, but its just the nature of things. That can be said for many different styles. Rock music is dead too. I am sure it had much more followers than jazz. Other music subgenres are better not to mention. Its same with many other art forms.
Much of ’grumpiness’ here I find to be a part of ’charm’ of this thread, hope everybody are all aware of it and doing it in for fun of it, not for malice
|
Rok, your comments over time speak for themselves. Your stances are duplicitous and disingenuous and made to fit whatever agenda you feel is necessary at the time. You have often professed to being the "protector" of jazz as just one example. There are two overriding issues here and always have been: 1. You are intolerant of other’s views on what constitutes real jazz; as if you had enough credibility on the subject to dictate that for anyone besides yourself. 2. In the absence of the ability to say much on the subject that goes much beyond the most basic or beyond "what you grew up with", you recoil and attack when others who can do.
On the subject of "elegant" and how you undermine: you obviously have no idea just how frequently musicians use the term "elegant" to describe another player’s style of playing when it suits. That’s the pity in all this, you have now dug your heels in on the subject and keep yourself from learning a small nugget of information. It’s ok if you are not interested in that kind information and always has been. However, when time and time again your constant attack on others’ definition of the music and the way that they express themselves about it (especially when these same people do not attack YOU for your musical preferences) does nothing more than bring negativity and derailment to the proceedings here, suggests to me that there is more than "fun" at work here and there is indeed some "malice". Sad.
****She stayed with the stuff she was exposed to during her young days. I do the same. We all do.****
I’ve got news for you, no, we don’t all do that. |
|
*****
I’ve got news for you, no, we don’t all do that.*****
NORMAL people do.
Cheers
|
|
I kinda feel like I might be buttin in here, but hey do you guys think Spyro Gyra is jazz. I'm not sure myself and don't think it is to some. But I was just listening to Morning Dance and am pretty surprisingly impressed with the production, it's very very good. I don't think it it's because of that reason although it doesn't hurt, but I find myself really enjoying it, immensely in fact. Not having a broad base of their material, but prior to listening to it I lumped them with say Kenny G. and the smooth jazz you hear in the dentists office or something.
Sooo, what do you jazz heads say. It won't make any diff. If it's not considered on par with other serious or real artists mentioned in this thread as its a killer listen musically as well ime. I almost listed this in another post as an artist I was surprised I like, mainly from the aforementioned smooth jazz connotation I had in my brain. Maybe I should give the G a half a chance. : ) so yeah I'm just curious is this jazz to the afficionados and what do musicians of you are one look at this. Thanks |
fourwinds - I think rok, arbiter of all that is good and true jazz, is the one to look to for an authoritative answer about SpyroGyra. rok - be gentle if you are able. Me? I’m a jazz aficionado dilettante and not qualified to have an independent O-pinion as I’m sure the R man will confirm. I do think if you like ’em or even just that one piece, it’s all that really matters. FWIW - I had the same impression as you that they were purveyors of shallow, vacuous smooth jazz. A musical accompaniment for novocaine, if you will. I freely admit that might be unfair based solely on a subjective assessment derived from limited exposure, personal bias, prejudice, intolerance and bandwidth receptivity narrower than a keyhole. BUT - I think I might be in some good company here!! On the other hand, I will have to check out Morning Dance. Thanks for the recommendation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVDZ5UY_oDw&ab_channel=AmherstRecords |
"Spyro Gyra", Morning Dance has been in my collection since it came out; as a matter of fact, I only have it on record.
Whether or not it's jazz doesn't really matter; it's a lot better than some current music that is considered jazz.
Enjoy the music.
|
Orpheus 10, I have the record as well and I'm pretty sure it's an original pressing. It was giving to me as a gift by a well intentioned family member who got it from a store I think is called Urban Outfitters selling "curated used vinyl" Good vinyl is where you find it I suppose but not my first consideration. But hey I shop at thrift stores.
Ghost,
your funny, narrow bandwidth, guilty as well, but I try. In my case it's the old router itself or modem or whichever it is that can't keep up. Thing is I'm okay with it. I'm not looking to impress nobody with my sophistication or lack there of.
Im gonna go out on a limb and say it's a better record, or at least deserves the same cache, that two other records that bookended Morning Dance, and put out by another pop jazz group. Both of which get mentioned quite a bit for sonics and perfectly other legitimate reasons to my ears as well. I'm referring to Aja and Gaucho.
|
|
Acman3, I just listened to your "Giant Steps In C" clip and I can't stop laughing. Great way to start the day and one of the funniest things I've heard in a while; thanks for that. |
fourwnds, I agree with the comments that what matters is whether you like Spyrogyra or not. Personally, I would be even a bit more generous in my assessment of "Morning Dance". While I can’t claim to be up to date on Spyrogyra’s total or recent "oeuvre", I remember that record fondly from college days and I believe I still have it. I would put that record in the same general category of "smooth jazz", "fusion jazz", whatever, as some of the music of Chuck Mangione. The title that works best for me is simply "pop-jazz"; of the better kind. As with much of Chuck Mangione’s music it is tuneful with strong compositional and production values and very good instrumental playing with a "pop" music sensibility. Saxophonist Jay Beckenstein can really play and he plays with a very pretty tone not the cliched and obnoxious, fast vibrato-laden, Dave Sanborn-wannabe kind of tone heard in most saxophone based "smooth jazz". I wouldn’t focus too much on whether it is "real jazz" or not for validation, but rather on whether it is good music or not. Yeah, it’s probably "better" than some current jazz, but I could make a case for why it’s also better than some old (real?) jazz that can be found on record. It’s not the genre that determines whether it’s good or not. While some can make a case for why steak is necessarily "better" than hamburger, sometimes there’s nothing like a great burger and I have had some pretty bad steaks in my time.
What I would reconsider is the suggestion that this record is on a par with Steely Dan’s work (especially "Aja"). Clearly a personal call, but SD is, generally, on a considerably higher level of musical craft if not as immediately accessible and tuneful as Spyrogyra. Welcome to the thread! |
Hey fourwinds - Glad you took my little rant as humor. Getting an original pressing of that Spyrogyra LP is a NICE present. I can see where you are coming from talking about Aja and Gaucho in the context. Add Royal Scam to the list (some tracks from it, anyway). I think I prefer the Steely Dan stuff because it seems a bit more complex - but that’s based on very limited familiarity with Spyrogyra and I might be selling them short. I don’t question their talent as musicians, more a case of questioning how they employ it. At the same time, these guys gotta pay the rent and buy groceries. Back in the day, seems like they found a commercially successful "formula". If it was so easy to do, lots more woulda done it. Might not be my preferred cuppa but I also think I can’t act all superior about their choices not having walked in their shoes.
As usual, thoughtful and insightful comments from Frogman. I agree with the parallel he draws between Spyro and Chuck Mangione. Pop Jazz is an apt sub-genre heading too. Trying to think of some others that are in this category...maybe some of Tom Scott's L.A. Express work??
I’m not sure why some here have a problem with analytical discussion ("critiquing"! even) of the music. I like getting below the surface, past the "Like it" or "Don’t like it" initial reaction and on to what makes it tick. Why is composition or performance ABC "better" (or not) than XYZ? Why are Flanagan and Evans "elegant" players while Monk, not so much. Does McCoy Tyner's intricacy qualify as elegant? How about Keith Jarrett?? Such discussion doesn’t detract from the music at all but can add to the enjoyment.
FWIW - Elegant is more restricted in meaning than simply being of high quality or "good". A definition of "elegance" (that which elegant embodies) from Merriam Webster on-line:
1a : refined grace or dignified propriety : urbanity
b : tasteful richness of design or ornamentation <the sumptuous elegance of the furnishings>
c : dignified gracefulness or restrained beauty of style : polish <the essay is marked by lucidity, wit, and elegance>
d : scientific precision, neatness, and simplicity <the elegance of a mathematical proof>
Restrained beauty of style strikes me as entirely applicable to what I've heard of Tommy Flanagan.
Hope you continue to participate in this thread. Hats off to Orpheus for starting it. Been a Jazz 101 course for me.
|
"Soul", what is it? Some of the most brilliant minds have tried to define it without success. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel spent his entire life writing about the philosophy of soul; The Phenomenology of Spirit was the name of his most famous book. When the uneducated refer to "soul", they are speaking of the same thing that Hegel spent his life studying, and writing about. I find that point of contrast quite fascinating. "Ray Charles got soul"; nobody in his right mind will argue with that statement. "Ray Charles can play jazz". "Huh"! might be the response from many people. Those who are not "Jazz aficionados" might find the two words, soul and jazz to be incongruous; that's because they think of "soul music", which is light years away from jazz; but moving right along to "Brother Ray" and jazz, his jazz got plenty plenty soul. The top example of this is "Blue Funk"; that's on a LP titled "Soul Brothers", featuring Brother Ray, and Milt Jackson plus all the other "Soul Brothers" that make this music; the word can not be overused when discussing this album. "Blue Funk" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQnOY5LWrWIEnjoy the music. |
Orpheus - enjoyed your comments about Soul and Jazz. You can have soul music without jazz but the best jazz music got to have soul.
You realize of course that you and Frogman are Yang/Yin, Head/Heart, Objective/Subjective...polar opposites - but the whole is not possible without both. At the same time, let me be quick to add, while I see Frogman's postings being interpreted as exclusively favoring an objectivist perspective on jazz, I don't think that accurately reflects where he's coming from. He doesn't need me to defend him. That's not my intent. Rather, as something of an outsider, I see merit in both your perspectives and no need for it to be one at the expense of the other. |
Excellent comments, Ghosthouse; you are exactly right. Re the objective/subjective issue:
As I see it, the main sticking point in the debate is what often seems to be the assumption by some that when objective criteria are used to judge some or all aspects of a particular music, that this automatically means that the evaluation is devoid of subjectivity or simple emotional reaction; or, that the person who sometimes analyses ALWAYS analyses when listening. Nothing could be further from the truth. As you point out, not only is there "no need for one to be at the expense of the other", objective analysis can actually help the listener appreciate MORE of what might otherwise fall under the heading of subjectivity. All this, of course, then plays into issues of the personality of a listener. I can understand why some need to keep analysis out of the equation and don’t want to be "hampered" by it and want to keep the listening experience as "simple" as possible and not be "challenged" as a listener; its a personal call. However, like you, I don’t understand the aversion to knowledge. Moreover, one of the key unanswered questions in this never-ending debate is why the "subjectivists" have no problem having strong opinions and even putting down certain music liked by others. In other words, if "subjectivity" alone is to be considered the best approach, should not the subjectivity of all listeners be respected while rendering ANY criticism moot? Why should the criteria used by subjectivists, whatever those may be, be more credible than that of those who bring SOME analysis to the equation? The pure subjectivists’ criteria are, by definition, personal; objective criteria are not.
One of the most curious aspects of all this as concerns subjectivity/objectivity and as it relates to the old jazz/new jazz debate is the simple fact that it is the staunch old jazz devotee(s?) who seem to like ONLY old jazz while I don’t think there has been a single fan of new jazz to post here that has not posted or expressed liking old jazz as well. So, to my simple minded way of thinking, just what is the problem? As you yourself have pointed out, there ARE universally accepted (well, almost 😉) basic criteria for judging SOME aspects of art. That is a hard pill for some to swallow for some reason.
Related in a very roundabout way, if arguably related at all, but came across this quote and thought it was worth sharing ☺️:
"Some days you get up and put the horn to your chops and it sounds pretty good and you win. Some days you try and nothing works and the horn wins. This goes on and on and then you die and the horn wins" - Dizzy Gillespie |
My position in music is quite simple, "Everybody is right" because music is so "subjective". With a stance like that, what is there to argue about?
|
Thanks guys for the thoughtful and thought provoking responses and warm welcome. I’m not sure I agree with the frogman’s SD assessment of their musical craft being of a different order. But it’s one I shared prior to listening to MD. More listening and time will tell how I feel about it. I was just initially taken aback (and no less so with subsequent listening so far) to be as thoroughly engaged. So much so I needed a reality check and thought I’d drop by. |
|
Fourwnds, me and my wife went for a long drive on a beautiful fall day, when the colors were at their peak, with another couple, and they played nothing but Kenny G, all the way there and back. I found his music so relaxing, that I nodded off four or five times; his music, and the red. green, and rust colored falling leaves, were like a tranquilizer of the highest magnitude.
In order to enjoy Kenny G., you just have to be at the right time and place.
Enjoy the music.
|
*****
"Everybody is right" because music is so "subjective". With a stance like that, what is there to argue about?*****
Wrong, wrong and wrong. With a stance like that, what is there to talk about. Music is music, and noise is noise, and never the twain shall meet.
Cheers
|
*****
I can understand why some need to keep analysis out of the equation and don’t want to be "hampered" by it and want to keep the listening experience as "simple" as possible and not be "challenged" as a listener;*****
I don't understand what an analysis of music is suppose to achieve.
Show of hands: How many of you fellow posters have ever heard music that you hated, that is, until The Frogman 'explained it', and now it's your favorite music to listen to. Write in with chapter and verse. And of course the opposite also: Music you loved until The Frogman explained it to you, now you hate it.
What effect does analysis have on your love of music? None I say. I was listening to, and enjoying music before I could even spell music.
The Frogman just wants to strut his stuff, so to speak. It's Interesting and informative, and I really believe everything he says because he's a pro, but it does not change musical taste.
Cheers
|
*****
One of the most curious aspects of all this as concerns subjectivity/objectivity and as it relates to the old jazz/new jazz debate is the simple fact that it is the staunch old jazz devotee(s?) who seem to like ONLY old jazz while I don’t think there has been a single fan of new jazz to post here that has not posted or expressed liking old jazz as well*****
Old Jazz is Jazz, and that is not in dispute. The definition of the current music is in dispute.
Surely you don't expect a person to come on board saying something like, "I like Jazz except for that noise made by Ellington, Armstrong, Mingus, Miles, Monk, Adderley, Silver, Morgan and folks of that ilk". Do you?
Cheers |
Objective / Subjective:
Think of the most god-awful piece of noise/trash you have ever heard, then consider this:
Some one wrote it, some one played it, some one recorded it. All professionals. All more knowledgeable than us, save The Frogman. All took time and money. And all concerned must have thought it was pretty good stuff.
So, instead of this objective / subjective, old / new debate, let's
just say, there is no accounting for taste, and be done.
Cheers |
And another thing:
Remember back in the days when the LP ruled. How many did we buy based on the liner notes? Which type notes made more of an impact, the analysis kind, or the ones that said stuff like "If you like Mingus you MUST has this LP!!! Think about it.
Cheers |
Rok, you force me to justify my statement, and that always takes a long story. If you got time to listen, I got time to tell it.
I hung out at this high end emporium so much that some of the customers thought I worked there; especially this one customer who could afford to buy the joint. Since I was always in the small theater where you audition equipment, he always had someone to talk to.
He would come in and ask me questions, and I told him there was only one way to decide, and that was to listen to the stuff. Me and him would sit back in the movie theater seats, while I requested the changes in equipment; like less try this ARC pre-amp with that CJ amp. Since he didn't have his own music, we listened to mine.
That went on for over a week, in which he had decided what he wanted, and brought in his own music. I was comfortably seated, and waiting to hear this dynamite music, when out blasts some kind of British marching music. It was all I could do to get that "What the .... is that" look off my face. I was thinking; he could have bought a wind up Graphenola to hear that; but he wasn't buying CJ and ARC for me.
My point is, his music is my noise, and my music could have been noise to him which he tolerated, and the same could apply to you and me at times; so where is this judge who can say unequivocally which is which?
Enjoy the music.
|
In regard to Frogman, how many times do I have to tell him, "I do not want to learn squat in regard to making music". As far as show of hands, I ain't got none; I hope that clears that up; but I don't want him to get off his box for my sake.
Is there anything that I failed to cover?
Enjoy the music.
|
