Jazz for aficionados

Lawd, Lawd, my burden is great!

Cheers

Too hip for the room! :-)

"Gypsy Jazz"! Just when I thought I had heard it all, Acman3, you come up with something new; I like it.

Enjoy the music.

To anyone:

(1) Do all symphony Orchestras utilize the same seating arrangement? I.E. are all the different instruments seated in the same place relative to the conductor in all orchestras?

(2) Are all memebers permanent? What about instruments that may not have parts in most symphonies. Harp? Are they full time employees?

(3) And lastly, this has been driving me nuts. Both BBC and Gramophone magazines have a monthly article where they discuss and make recommendation on a particular piece of music. They will review several performances and give their take on each, including ones to avoid.

While reading one of these articles I THINK, I read the following. "and for those of you that DEMAND THAT EVERY NOTE BE PLAYED", they then named a CD.

I think it was Paganini. My question is this: Is it ever 'acceptable' or permitted, or even expected, that all of the notes of ANY piece of music will not be played? Even by a soloist.

Cheers

Django?

You guys!! Always pulling my leg. But I must admit, you had me convinced you were serious for a while. :)

Cheers

When an artist is popular and makes a good living, he can't be playing jazz, his music must have a qualifier; like "soul Jazz".

Grover Washington was popular, and his music was "jazz" without any qualifier. All jazz musicians in the past have given their versions of popular tunes without getting the title of "soul jazz musician"; whatever, as long as he was able to take it to the bank.

Here are two of my favorite tunes by Grover:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i80HVojYPdA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFd3c2HZvI

Enjoy the music.

Rok,

1) No. Although there are traditional seating arrangements for certain sections, certain instrument sections may be positioned differently according to the particular orchestra's traditions, a particular conductor's wishes, or a particular work's requirements per the composer. Although as concerns a particular work's requirements (usually a modern work) "all bets are off", orchestral seating arrangements that seldom change are:

- 1rst violins: left/front
- woodwinds: center/ front to back with horns usually closer to center behind woodwinds
- brass: right/rear
- percussion across the left to right/ rear

Seating for 2nd violins, violas, celli and basses can vary. In opera orchestras, because of the shallowness of most "pits" seating varies even more.

2) Most members are permanent. "Auxiliary" instruments (bass clarinet, piccolo, harp) in major orchestras, with a few exceptions (saxophone), are also permanent. In orchestras with smaller budgets they are not.

3) Given the amazing level of proficiency in today's orchestras there is little chance of an unusually technically demanding work not being executed to near perfection (technically); and, it certainly would not be acceptable if that were the case. That wasn't always the case with earlier recordings of the modern repertory on which one can sometimes hear the players struggling with difficult passages. However, it is not clear from the "every note heard" comment wether the reviewer refers to the execution of the parts or (more likely) to wether that particular recording or performance includes a passage or section of music that, either because of traditional performance practice, or the composer's designation as "optional".

BTW, was I pulling your leg? :-)

The Frogman:

Thanks for the info. If I run across the magazine with the 'all the notes' thingy I will let you know.

I called my personal Physician today. She is a Jazz lover also. Told her I had absorbed a full dose of European pseudo-Jazz. She said the best antidote is to immeediately listen to the real deal.

She prescribed 'Oscar Peterson Trio at The Concertgebouw', with Herb Ellis on guitar. And, if needed, Wes Montegomery's 'Smokin' at the half note'

Didn't need Wes. Brother Herb was the cure. :)

Cheers

"Take two back-beats and call me in the morning" :-)

Today's listen:

Benny Goodman -- BENNY GOODMAN LIVE AT CARNEGIE HALL

2cd Set. Recorded in 1938. The liner notes say this is one of the most important Jazz concerts ever. Sort of like a coming out party for Jazz in the presence of Polite Society and at a big time venue. Not to mention that it seems to have been a totally integrated affair. Not a trivial thing in 1938. Goodman was courageous that way.

A lot of big time players here. The Goodman Band, parts of the Basie and Ellington Bands.

Some of the more notables include:
Goodman, Basie, Teddy Wilson, Lionel Hampton, Johnny Hodges, Cootie Williams, Lester Young, Buck Clayton, Harry James, Gene Krupa and others.

The music is good and played with enthusiasm. The entire effort is let down by the recording. It's uneven. Not much noise, but the volume seems to come and go at random, and sometimes the soloists fade.

A later reissue on CD brings out the music a little better, but more noise along with it. I guess we can say it would be the 'audiophile' edition.

All great tunes. My favorites were 'bei mir bist du schon', 'sing sing sing' and 'honeysuckle rose'. Krupa shines on Sing Sing sing.

It's a shame events like this were let down by the technology of the day.

It was a significant event, and I am glad I have it. Jazz lovers into more modern sounds, and not that much into the history of the music, can probably pass.

Cheers

Rok, the Oscar Peterson at the Concertgebouw album is a good one, if you are not familiar with it already. I would definitely second that recommendation.

Frogman definitely answered your orchestral questions very nicely. I would agree with his speculation about #3 having to do with optional passages, or more likely, actual cuts in the music that were NOT specified by the composer. Another even stronger possibility would be repeats designated by the composer that were not observed, thus messing with the form of the work. Many, in fact most conductors often omit some repeats in Classical era symphonies, for example, which would have horrified the composers of these works - Mozart has some hilarious comments on the subjects in his letters. Frankly, I agree with him. In my opinion, it does mess with the intended form and balance of the composition, and I personally believe all of those repeats should be observed, as they were back in the day. When they are not, for instance in the symphonies of Brahms and others in the Romantic era, the audience is literally not hearing some of the notes he wrote that are played only if the repeat is going to be made, but are not played in the continuation. That's maybe not very clear, but hopefully you get the meaning. I think that this is what the reviewers are most likely referring to, and that it has nothing to do with the technical ability of the players, but with the choice of the conductor not to observe a repeat.

Learsfool:

Yes I have the Peterson CD. The 'story' about the Doctor was just me messin' with The Frogman.

I only mentioned the 'all the notes' thingy because I was pretty sure it was Paganini and his '24 Caprices'. Which from what I read, gives you classical folks a bit of trouble. So I thought there was a chance some of the notes were missed, which would be astounding to me!

But it was probably as you said, just a repeat thing or the conductor's shortening of the work.

Cheers

O-10:

I remember back in the day when heart transplants were a lot more iffy and rarer than they are today, a famous doctor listened to 'Inside Moves' by Grover washington jr, while performing a transplant. Blew my mind!

That's what I call a Jazz Lover!!

I have 'Mister Magic' and 'Then and Now'. I also have 'winelight' which I have on the Pop rack. He did a few records with a non-Jazz guy whose name I cannot recall now. I suspect he was a lot of folks entry into the world of Jazz.

Nice clips

Cheers

****"Gypsy Jazz"! Just when I thought I had heard it all, Acman3, you come up with something new; I like it.*****

I can't wait until you get to Papua New Guinea Head-hunter 'Jazz'. Maybe you, The Frogman, and Acman3 could then fly over and catch a few shows.

I hear their instrumentation is rather limited, but boy, do they get down!!

Cheers

Lest you folks think I am some sort of Xenophobe. It don't get better than this. What voices! And this is right down the road from the U.S.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6MTmGnolbs

Cheers

It's a funny thing Rok, just before I read your post I was listening to jazz on a didgeridoo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didgeridoo

Too bad I couldn't find it on "you tube", Australia's not far from Papua New Guinea; I'll have to find what they jam over there.

Enjoy the music.

Brazil 77 was released in 71, no wonder it sounds so close to Brazil 66; whatever, Brazil doesn't get any better than that.

Enjoy the music.

Rok, here is a musician we haven't covered, "Johnny Lytle".

Life and career[edit]Lytle grew up in Springfield, Ohio in a family of music, the son of a trumpeter father and an organist mother. He began playing the drums and piano at an early age. Before studying music in earnest, he was a boxer, and was a successful Golden Gloves champion. During the late '50s, Lytle continued to box, but landed jobs as a drummer for Ray Charles, Jimmy Witherspoon and Gene Ammons. Then he switched from drums to vibraphone and toured with organist Hiram "Boots" Johnson from 1955 to '57. He formed his first group in 1957 with saxophonist Boots Johnson, organist Milton Harris and drummer William "Peppy" Hinnant. He impressed the Grammy award-winning producer Orrin Keepnews who signed him to his Jazzland label in 1960.

Lionel Hampton, considered one of the top vibes players in the world, said Lytle was "the greatest vibes player in the world." Lytle was known for his great hand speed and showmanship. He was also a songwriter, penning many of his own hits, including "The Loop," "The Man," "Lela," "Selim," and the jazz classic "The Village Caller." Lytle recorded more than 30 albums for various jazz labels including Tuba, Jazzland, Solid State and Muse. Throughout his career he performed and recorded with jazz greats including Louis Armstrong, Lionel Hampton, Miles Davis, Nancy Wilson, Bobby Timmons and Roy Ayers. Lytle was such an admirer of the music of Miles Davis that he wrote "Selim" (Miles spelled backwards) in honor of Davis. He also featured his son, Marcel Lytle, on several recordings, as a vocalist and drummer.

Lytle never recorded with any of the major record labels and that could be why he never gained the status of a jazz icon like some of his peers. Feeling he would lose control of his music and creative development; he played what came natural to him, and being with a major label might not have afforded him that opportunity.

He found success early in his career with chart-topping albums like A Groove, The Loop, and Moonchild. From his swinging uptempo tracks to his soul-satisfying ballads, Lytle knew how to keep a groove. And with a nickname like "Fast Hands," he could always keep the attention of an audience. In addition to his musicianship, his gregarious personality made him a popular attraction on the jazz circuit. Even though he did not experience the same success he was privileged to during the '60s, he did continue to record and build a respectable catalog of music with recordings in the '70s,'80s and '90s.

Lytle remained a popular concert attraction in the U.S. and Europe; his last performance was with the Springfield (Ohio) Symphony Orchestra in his hometown on November 18, 1995. He was survived by his wife Barbara Jean Lytle, his son Marcel Anthony (of Atlanta), Michael-Lamont (of Toronto), and daughter Ayo Michelle Hagans (of Springfield) At the time of his death, Lytle was scheduled to begin recording a new CD on the Muse label. In his hometown of Springfield, Ohio, the street where he used to live was renamed Johnny Lytle Avenue in his honor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inv1dVgOe9k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcBVTVgSu_U

These are standards I found by him on "You tube". He did a tune back in the 60's that really caught my ear, but I can't think of the name of the tune; don't you find that aggravating. I guess it's called getting young.

Enjoy the music.

O-10:

I was not aware of Johnny Lytle. The clips were awesome! Esp 'St Louis Blues'. In the manner of Ray Charles, he played it so slow, it made you wanna scream! Both were great.

There is quite a bit of his stuff on Amazon. I will look for the one with St Louis Blues for sure. And since I now know a little history of him, it's a slam dunk for me.

See, there are 'undiscovered' gems right here in the USA!

BTW, as I was reading your post, Lou Rawls, singing 'Saturday Night Fish Fry' was in the player. It features Lionel Hampton!! Love the vibes.

Thanks for the find. I get the Baroness' book tomorrow.

Cheers

A few comments about some recent clips and mentions:

Rok, Benny "At Carnegie Hall" was my very first jazz record. I don't know how obvious it's been based on past posts, but I love Benny and that style of music in general. Personally, I don't understand how a truly comprehensive discussion on jazz can take place without substantial mention and discussion of players like Goodman, Artie Shaw, Harry James and others from that period. The level of artistry, within that style, is fabulous; not to mention their contribution to paving the way for the more modern players. I would like to see more of it on this thread.

I am sure O-10 meant the comment as a generalization, and I certainly don't know what he considers a "good living", but while it is true that many jazz artists didn't get their due, just as many made very good livings. Going back in time, and speaking of Benny, sidemen in his band (and others) made upper-middle-class incomes, and the leaders did very well. Today, someone like Wynton, makes in excess of 2 million a year, and sidemen in his band have incomes in excess of $200k.

Grover is one of the "pop" saxophone players who consistently receives the respect of other musicians; he can really play! His recording of Operatic arias "Aria" is beautiful and shows a sensitivity that so many pop saxists don't have. Highly recommended.

My grandmother used to say: "if you don't have anything positive to say...."

I wish I could share my fellow enthusiasts' enthusiasm for Johnny Lytle. I find his playing rudimentary and lacking in sophistication. There are various reasons why some players fade into obscurity; in this case the reason is obvious IMO. His improvising on "St Louis Blues" is almost like that of a young jazz student in music school; he doesn't make all the changes and resorts to the same blues scale over the changing harmonies. He may have "speed"; but, so what? He uses way too much sustain pedal which makes his playing sound "swimmy". And what is up with those xylaphone (bells) at the end of "Summertime"? Huh?

OK, how do I really feel about .....?

Johnny Lytle:
Dang!! The Frogman is a hard taskmaster.
Lytle is a 'soul-Jazz' player. The 'groove' is the thing. Almost like instrumental R&B. And, as you yourself have done in the past, to indicate a player's ability: He played with Armstrong, Lionel Hampton, Miles, Nancy Wilson, and Bobby Timmons etc.... And recorded over 30 albums.

The bells on 'Summertime'? I don't know what that was. St Louis Blues? I liked the tempo and the 'groove'. This is not 'Giant Steps' type improvisation. Was not even the intent. Lounge music.

Give Mr Lytle some love! :)

Cheers

Frogman, as always, I appreciate your comments. All music is subjective, and jazz is more subjective than most genres of music. I approach music from a purely subjective point of view; while I read history, I listen to music; consequently, when what I read disagrees with what I hear, the book goes in the library, while the music goes in the record collection.

Johnny Lytle's "St. Louis Blues" comes on slow and easy, like that St. Louis woman with her diamond ring; and I know a lot about them. I believe Rok stated the case for Johnny Lytle quite eloquently.

Charlie Parker and the other giants of jazz that "Nica" supported made a lousy living. Although Wynton makes a fantastic salary, he's an exception.

While I'm quite aware of Benny Goodman, Harry James, and Artie Shaw; as close as my music collection will come is Stan Kenton. His big band is well represented in my collection, and his range of music is as wide as the Pacific Ocean. I know Rok remembers when he was in the Columbia Record Club, and we received those records we didn't order, but you could send them back; well Kenton's records didn't go back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3EkI3ISz28

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN9sp6ApX4o

Here are a couple of tunes by Stan, maybe Leersfool could enlighten us on the unusual brass horns.

Enjoy the music.

Frogman, "I love Benny and that style of music in general. Personally, I don't understand how a truly comprehensive discussion on jazz can take place without substantial mention and discussion of players like Goodman, Artie Shaw, Harry James and others from that period. The level of artistry, within that style, is fabulous; not to mention their contribution to paving the way for the more modern players. I would like to see more of it on this thread."

Would you be so kind as to enlighten us, you have the floor.

Enjoy the music.

******* I don't understand how a truly comprehensive discussion on jazz can take place without substantial mention and discussion of players like Goodman, Artie Shaw, Harry James and others from that period.*****

That would be easy to do. There are not that many players that 'must be' mentioned in a history or comprehensivbe discussion of Jazz. A small percentage.

The Label, BLUE NOTE, for instance, is more important to Jazz than any of the people you mentioned. In fact, I am not sure they played Jazz at all. They all took solos, and displayed great skill on their instrument, but I am not sure that much 'improvisation' was going on.

*****The level of artistry, within that style, is fabulous; not to mention their contribution to paving the way for the more modern players.*********

Technically proficient? Without a doubt. But so was Maurice Andre, and any number of players in classical Orchestras. They just don't play Jazz.

To paraphrase a very popular bumper sticker down here in the Bible Belt:

No Blues, No Jazz
Know Blues, Know Jazz

Pretty much sums it up.

And Shaw's 'begin The Beguine' is one of my all time favorite tunes. All these guys made great music. Great Swing and big Band music.

In fact, I had heard a LOT of Harry James and Goodman, before I ever heard ANY Miles or Morgan or Hubbard et al. Maybe that's indicative of the problem. A lot of people were accepted as being things, that they were in fact, not!!

Cheers

O-10, thanks for the sentiment; the feeling is mutual.

While I completely agree with you that music is subjective (well, more accurately, one's reaction to music is subjective) I don't know on what you base the comment that jazz is more subjective than any other form of music or that a reaction to a particular player's ability that differs from yours means that there is, necessarily, anything but subjectivity at play (pun intended). There is as much variety of opinion and disagreement about the merits of, say, classical music players and performances than there is of jazz. We all have a tendency to consider our preferred style of music unique, and while every genre clearly has many subjective stylistic (subjective) traits, at their core, all genres share similar values; not every aspect of music and performance is subjective. We have set a very high bar by discussing the very best players of this music and I simply didn't hear anything special in Lytle's playing on the two clips posted. So, to paraphrase you: "what I hear disagrees with what I read about Lytle, so the records go back".

Jazz players and income: Clearly Wynton is an exception. My comments were a reaction to your statement: "When an artist is popular and makes a good living, he can't be playing jazz". As we all know, Bird lived a troubled life and squandered much of his earnings on booze and drugs, but the truth is that "popular" jazz artists did and do make very good livings. Of course, there are many players who scrape by; but, they are not "popular"; and isn't that true of any profession? Louis Armstrong made a good living, so did Coltrane, Rollins, Miles, Shorter, and Benny Goodman. Speaking of Benny, there is so much great stuff by him, these clips also feature the great Lionel Hampton; NOT the world's greatest vibist :-). I would be glad to "enlighten":

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3ptPK7iNweI

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aeg1056UDck

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0U8a-s4bYfY

Rok, I can feel that this is going down a treacherous road (for an Internet discussion).

****That would be easy to do. There are not that many players that 'must be' mentioned in a history or comprehensivbe discussion of Jazz. A small percentage.****

Exactly!! The notion that a player like Lytle deserves to be mentioned more than Goodman is, with all due respect, somewhat absurd.

****In fact, I am not sure they played Jazz at all. They all took solos, and displayed great skill on their instrument, but I am not sure that much 'improvisation' was going on.****

THAT, my friend, is why it's not possible to "know too much"; and why knowing a little is a dangerous thing. It's fine to always fall back on the comfort of "subjectivity", but in the broad scheme there is, in fact, a nut-and -bolts way judging any music's merit.

All this music was part of the melting pot, and part of the "continuum"; and it it certainly is "jazz".

****A lot of people were accepted as being things, that they were in fact, not!!****

I could not have said it better myself.

Regards.

Frogman, this is not an intellectual course in jazz. To make a long story short, in regard to many musician's music who play what's called jazz, "ain't got none, and don't wont none"

Enjoy the music.

Leerfool, and Frogman, did you overlook the post on Stan Kenton; could you comment on the special brass horns especially, and his music in general.

****Rok, I can feel that this is going down a treacherous road (for an Internet discussion).*****

Won't happen. I no longer do treacherous roads. I now rely on my irresistible logic!!

******Exactly!! The notion that a player like Lytle deserves to be mentioned more than Goodman is, with all due respect, somewhat absurd.*******

That would be absurd, but, that is not what I said. We were talking of Lytle's clips, and our comments or thoughts on those clips. Goodman was a different thing altogether. Came up in your response to my 'review' of Goodman's CD. If Lytle was a baseball player, he would be a journeyman at best.

*****THAT, my friend, is why it's not possible to "know too much"; and why knowing a little is a dangerous thing. It's fine to always fall back on the comfort of "subjectivity", but in the broad scheme there is, in fact, a nut-and -bolts way judging any music's merit.*****

No one is falling back on anything. There may be a nuts and bolts way to judge music. I am sure they use this in all the major music schools. I am sure all the pros use this method to play and to judge their peers.. BUT, the PUBLIC / AUDIENCE decides who, and what is great. And all they, the public, has to know is, I like it, or, I don't like it. Exasperating, but true.

*****All this music was part of the melting pot, and part of the "continuum"; and it it certainly is "jazz".*****

This may be the root cause of all our 'discussions'. I think you see Jazz as 6 lane super highway running in both directions, with many exit and entry points. I see it as a path being hacked thru an almost impenetrable jungle. The newbies entering at the beginning, and the greats, up front doing the hacking. You are on the path or you are lost.

*****I could not have said it better myself.*****

Then we really have no disagreement.

As always, your posts are informative, spoken from a position of knowledge, and greatly appreciated.

Cheers

Rok, we really have NO substantive disagreement, and I admire your passion for the music. Our main area of disagreement is in the absolutism of a comment that you have made several times to the effect that the "public decides who is great". If that were true then how do you explain the popularity of so much music that you, yourself, consider not worthy of respect; all the music's with a prefix? Ignorance may be bliss, but it certainly does not lead to insight. Additionally, there is no glory in ignorance and knowledge does not in any way detract from the emotional appreciation of the music. That is a mistake that those content to remain "ignorant" of the nuts and bolts routinely make; that ignoring the facts somehow leads to a better emotional connection with the music. It is precisely the opposite; it leads to a better appreciation. The irony here is that the players that we are talking about, themselves, were/are so steeped in the nuts and bolts of the music and discussions about what made a particular player great or not, that it makes any of our "discussions" seem sophomoric. Listeners tend to over-romanticize the process of music making (including jazz) as a spiritual "calling of the muse". Only after a very deep understanding of the nuts and bolts can a creative artist find his voice; wether the nuts and bolts was learned in a music school or the jam session. Why should it be any different for the listener?

I will give you a concrete example:

****I am not sure how much improvising they actually did****

If you understood a little more about the nuts and bolts it would be perfectly clear to you that they are improvising. How on earth would that be a negative? You may still not like the music but it would at least bring you one step closer to acknowledging that it is jazz. It may still not fit your definition of jazz, but remember it is only YOUR definition. And BTW, the great jazz players would be the first to admit that jazz really is like a "6 lane highway"; it ALL goes into the stew pot.

First, let me apologize for misspelling "Learsfool", some days I misspell my own name.

Rok, my appreciation for these jams on "The 100 Best Tunes Of The 1950's" has grown tenfold since I first heard them. Our discussions about the very musicians we're listening to has heightened my awareness of their individual contributions to the whole of jazz.

Before, I didn't pay much attention to sidemen, but now I'm aware of each individual sideman and what he's contributing to the tune. Jackie McClean was chosen a lot as a sideman, and so was Pepper Adams; they both sound better as side men, than on their own albums that I have in my collection.

Ray Charles is one hell of jazz pianist, but we both knew that. "Milestones" was certainly ground breaking with his introduction of "modal jazz"; while I still don't quite know what that is, I can distinctly remember the first time I heard this tune; it struck me as not only being different, but I thought each individual sideman was as outstanding as Miles. His ability to select the very best sidemen for "his" music is one that he retained until the end.

This wont be my last post on "The 100 Best Tunes of The 1950's".

Enjoy the music.

The Frogman:

******Our main area of disagreement is in the absolutism of a comment that you have made several times to the effect that the "public decides who is great". If that were true then how do you explain the popularity of so much music that you, yourself, consider not worthy of respect; all the music's with a prefix?*******

Because more members of the public like it, than don't like it. Or, at least, enough buy it to make it PROFITABLE. I am just one member of the public.

*****there is no glory in ignorance and knowledge does not in any way detract from the emotional appreciation of the music. That is a mistake that those content to remain "ignorant" of the nuts and bolts routinely make; that ignoring the facts somehow leads to a better emotional connection with the music.******

I agree. But it's not my point. Ignorance has nothing to do with it. Neither does knowledge. Music either makes a connection with the listener, or it does not. You can't say, this player's nuts and bolts are better, therefore, you should like his music better. Or that it will/should sell better. It just don't work that way.

******If you understood a little more about the nuts and bolts it would be perfectly clear to you that they are improvising. How on earth would that be a negative? You may still not like the music but it would at least bring you one step closer to acknowledging that it is jazz.*****

This may be true. But I should know that improvisation is taking place, without having to be an expert on nuts and bolts. But, this would not even apply to Goodman or James. Their music was not that complex. David Murray maybe. And I see he has changed his ways lately. :)

*****And BTW, the great jazz players would be the first to admit that jazz really is like a "6 lane highway"; it ALL goes into the stew pot.******

Jazz players are the most political correct people on the planet. They are never critical of anything or anybody. At least not on the record. They all talk that stew pot stuff. The people that ask the questions, KNOW what the answer will be.

Another term for 'The Public' could be, 'The Bottom Line'! As in the bottom line of the financial ledger. It's two different ways of saying the same thing.

The 'Public' or the 'Market Place' decides. Nuts and bolt notwithstanding!

Remember VHS vs Beta-Max?? Same principal.

I think you are looking at this from the perspective of a professional musician. Everything you say about music and Jazz, is absolutely true. I never doubt any of it. Who am I to doubt a pro? It's just, that what you are saying, does not survive contact, with the unwashed, ignorant masses. You know, the folks that buy the LPs, CDs, and tickets. You are talking art, I'm talking business. We are both right.

I am currently 'reviewing' my lastest purchase, 'Tiny Tim Plays Monk". Lord, Lord. I am bloodied, but unbowed!!
Keep the faith baby!

Cheers

Rok, you made me think of one of the worst musical moments in my life. Please don't do it anymore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQylt3TVFrI

And who could pass on this masterpiece….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-NwsWuARqo

It's actually a pretty funny record. I was a Brave Combo fan and have this for very special occasions.

Frogman, you're right in regard to musicians earning a good living, even those who aren't famous but work steady locally; while those with self destructive traits can't help themselves and become poverty stricken.

Enjoy the music.

Acman3:

Now, I have experienced two of the worst musical moments in my life!!

Cheers

O-10:

Both of the Stan Kenton tunes were disappointments. Mainly the sound quality and the arrangements.

We had Mellow-phones in our marching band, but they looked sort of like French horns.

I LOVE Malaguena. I wore out a few '101 Strings' LPs playing that tune.

I also just LOVE Drum and Bugle Corps. Used to be televised down here. Some of the top units used to stop here and practice at the locl High School.

Here is the best of Both worlds!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PECUpJuUeAQ

Cheers

Hi guys - sorry, been very busy. Now have a few days off, but will be going to visit my folks for Thanksgiving, so will probably be off the board again.

Orpheus - yes, as I believe Rok said, those are mellophones. By the way, the term Stan Kenton uses in that video is incorrect, he calls them something weird like mellophoniums. Anyway, they are basically large trumpets that have a mellower sound, closer to my instrument in tone quality. Larger than the fluglehorn, which you may be more familiar with, as that is used much more in jazz than the mellophones were, and the sound of a flugle horn is closer to the trumpet sound than the mellophone is. In fact, I think Stan Kenton's band was the only one that used mellophones on anything like a regular basis. They are most commonly used in marching bands. The trumpet players in that video were playing them, however in many marching bands, an extension is put into the lead pipe of the instrument so that a French horn mouthpiece can fit, and then horn players play them. They are truly awful instruments, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. In recent years, an instrument called the marching French horn has been invented to replace mellophones, so they are not used much at all anymore. They were quite common, though, nothing unusual about them, in fact I think it is unusual that you haven't ever seen one - you probably have in marching bands without realizing it.

In the two years I spent in a high school marching band before I escaped to an arts academy, I had to play the mellophone. Miserable experience. I have played some Stan Kenton charts that had mellophone parts in pops concerts, though we played them on our regular horns. They were screaming high, so were not very pleasant to play. Decent enough charts. That was a very popular band, guys like Maynard Ferguson and other famous trumpet players came out of it. Nothing particularly interesting about it from a purely musical standpoint, frankly, but they did have some good tunes.

Interesting conversation going on since I have looked in - I want to highlight some things that Frogman has said, starting with he is absolutely correct to say that one's reaction to music is subjective. There are many things about music that are not subjective. An analogy might be to food - many people love to eat things that aren't actually very good, and defend it by saying that taste is subjective.

This has to do also with this comment of Frogman's: "THAT, my friend, is why it's not possible to "know too much"; and why knowing a little is a dangerous thing. It's fine to always fall back on the comfort of "subjectivity", but in the broad scheme there is, in fact, a nut-and -bolts way judging any music's merit."

And also this: "Ignorance may be bliss, but it certainly does not lead to insight. Additionally, there is no glory in ignorance and knowledge does not in any way detract from the emotional appreciation of the music. That is a mistake that those content to remain "ignorant" of the nuts and bolts routinely make; that ignoring the facts somehow leads to a better emotional connection with the music. It is precisely the opposite; it leads to a better appreciation. The irony here is that the players that we are talking about, themselves, were/are so steeped in the nuts and bolts of the music and discussions about what made a particular player great or not, that it makes any of our "discussions" seem sophomoric. Listeners tend to over-romanticize the process of music making (including jazz) as a spiritual "calling of the muse". Only after a very deep understanding of the nuts and bolts can a creative artist find his voice; wether the nuts and bolts was learned in a music school or the jam session. Why should it be any different for the listener?"

Rok stated a little later that " I should know that improvisation is taking place, without having to be an expert on nuts and bolts."

While this statement is actually true, nevertheless the fact that you were not able to tell quite frankly says more about your listening ability/general musical knowledge than it does about the performer and/or writer of what you are listening to. A very small amount of work would quickly remedy this, you just have to put in the effort, and if you do, the rewards in understanding and appreciation of the music you love are far greater than the small effort required. I'm not saying you need a theory degree or anything, you just need to learn to listen a little more attentively than you think you are (talking about how to do this will have to wait). Please do not take this personally, it is not at all meant that way - it's late and I am tired, and I tend to come off with a different tone than I intend, and I apologize for that.

O-10:

Just listened again to CD1 of the box set this morning. Speaking of sidemen? On these sets the sidemen are as accomplished as the leaders. It's like a who's who of Jazz.

The music on this disc seems to have less of an edge or attitude than that which would soon follow. I was surprised that Parker sounded so 'normal'? :)

I just love the fact that a very nice informative discussion of each number is included. Listing the members of the group and the LP the tune is taken from. This is a very good buy.

The only thing I don't like is that some of the pages of the booklet are difficult to read due to the background colors of some of the pages. They never seem to consider us old timers, or at least consider our eyes.

I noticed that Django/nuages, was followed by MJQ/Django. Cute. I also liked that the tunes were short. Except for Miles of course. His 'Walkin' was 5 times longer than the average tune. But, he be Miles!

Cheers

Rok, this is the best compilation I've ever acquired, although I got a headache from reading about it; consequently, I'm doing more listening and less reading.

On CD 2, Kenny Dorham's "Afrodesia" was new to me. He failed to get the recognition he deserved. After checking the sidemen, I realized why this tune was so fantastic. Carlos "Potato" Valdes is someone I had forgotten about. All the other sidemen are stars in their own right.

While all the cuts on this CD are outstanding, "The Champ" by Jimmy Smith is another tune that caught my attention, and it was one of the few without well known sidemen.

Although I wasn't too impressed with the tune Carmen sang, I really liked the sound of her voice; since that was in 56, I'm going to get everything she recorded in that year.

Enjoy the music.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL!

O-10:

Got the 'Three Wishes' book yesterday. This is much more than I expected. This is really an eye opener for me.

The comments, the majority of them, seem to open and honest. And the photos are priceless! The Baroness was not much of a photographer and/or did not take care of the photos. But, in a way, that adds to the book. The people and their lives were not picture perfect either.

So far, the biggerst surprise is how often they wished they could play better. Could play what was in their head. Master their instrument. Wished Jazz was respected.

You cannot help but admire these guys. And nobody seemed to be getting rich. At least judging by the photos. In fact money/jobs was often mentioned.

I think this is a gem. Best book on Jazz / players I have so far. Thanks. Will have more to say as I read it.

Cheers

And Happy Thanksgiving to you too!

O-10

Back At'ya!!

Cheers

Audiogon member Lewm, once shared with me the Mitchell-Ruff Duo.

http://www.youtube.com/listen?v=ZEuO1Eris0E

http://www.youtube.com/listen?v=A4dfV3CPnt0

Thank you all for sharing great Jazz with me.

Acman3:

Very nice stuff. Interesting both musically and historically. Let's just pray that his technique on horn is up to par. I would hate to see him suffer the wrath of Learsfool!

http://www.youtube.com/listen?v=A4dfV3CPnt0 Cheers

Happy Holidays!

Cheers

Rok, Nica liked to take pictures when her subjects were sound asleep, and they slept wherever they dozed off; the couch, a chair, even the floor. This was after a late night gig, and her pad was where they came to enjoy the camaraderie of other musicians. She had cats everywhere, and Monk hated cats but he never told Nica. On about page 46, there are two pictures of Monk, sound asleep with a cat sleeping on him. Although these pictures were taken at different times (different clothes) the same cat is sleeping on him. That cat had claimed Monk as his property whether Monk knew it or not.

There's a good picture of a young Lee Morgan, sound asleep. I find it hard to believe someone so young, was a giant among giants. I can only imagine what he would have accomplished, had he lived longer. That picture makes me realize that I always assumed he was much older, without even thinking about it.

Now when you listen to that compilation of the best decade in jazz, you can visualize the musicians at the same time.

Enjoy the music.

Learsfool, I'm dying to hear your comments on Willie Ruff and Dwike Mitchell; especially the French horn part.

Enjoy the music.