Jazz for aficionados
. Lears...very interesting piece. Thank you for sharing. I'm a jazz lover, but I was guilty as hell regarding the Rothko-Monet example...excellent analogy. Amazingly, I don't listen to very much vocal music because it gets in the way of, or distracts from the instrumental content. Easily 95% of my jazz collection is instrumental. The next time I see a piece of abstract art, I won't be so dismissive of it. I will be more open and try to look a little deeper. However, It's going to take me another two or three decades to try to figure out Cecil Taylor and Jackson Pollock. . |
Learsfool, that was a very thought provoking article. Most people prefer words with their music, we're the ones who are different; however, in the case of jazz, musicians feed off of other musicians, there were many more jazz musicians in the 50's and 60's than now. I'll give you an example; I just picked out two of my favorite albums: Benny Green, "Soul Stirring", consisting of highly prominent sidemen who are stars in their own right: Gene Ammons, Sonny Clark, and Alvin Jones were jazz stars who also led groups. Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers consisted of so many stars down through the years to even include Wynton Marsalis, that the jazz had to be top quality. The album "Moanin", consisted of Lee Morgan, trumpet; Benny Golson, tenor sax; Bobby Timmons, piano; and of course Art Blakey on drums. When just two LP's are loaded with so many greats, the music couldn't go wrong. Back then, people who were into popular vocal music, had a few jazz LP's because they liked the music. Although these tunes came into my collection without vocals, here are some with vocals on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA81pRYtEXc Here's the same tune by Andre Previn; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZKzTMr1M5E Now for Horace Silver, "Senor Blues"; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRdlvzIEz-g This is a vocal version; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpPXgjsjgAw While I enjoy both versions of my favorite jazz tunes, the bottom line is the original as it was first composed. Enjoy the music. |
Learsfool, interesting and thought-provoking piece; but, with some real problems. First of all, I don't subscribe to the, unfortunately typical, negative doom-and-gloom view of the health of Jazz and what many feel its place in popular culture is or should be. But, first, some "technical" problems with the article: The author reveals lack of depth in his perspective right off the bat by putting Kenny G alongside Coltrane as examples of terrible and great Jazz, without understanding (or, at least, acknowledging) that Kenny G is not a Jazz artist at all. That many today may consider him a Jazz musician is both irrelevant to the important issue here and also indicative of the futility of approaching the issue that he attempts to tackle from this perspective. He then goes on to use the example of Sinatra's "My Way". Huh?! Jazz?! His points about Americans' attraction to vocal music and lyrics are well taken. However, more than anything, they point to a key issue in the "problem"; if one insists on calling it a problem. I don't, necessarily. To me, as with many trends in the arts, it is an inevitability. The "problem" goes back to the issue that Rok brought up (with a little prodding :-) ) recently: that art, inevitably, reflects the times; and, also, to our mistaken insistence on relating Jazz to popular culture. Yes, Jazz was the pop music at one point in time. So what? That was then, and today is a completely different time. It is important to point out that every popular music has its time and then fades into relative obscurity. Ragtime did, swing did, big-band did, bebop did, folk did, etc. It is also important for us to individually acknowledge that, at least in part, our personal affinity for Jazz from certain periods of time is a reflection of our personal affinity for all that the particular period of time stands for in our lives and should not necessarily be the ultimate test of that music's quality or value in the scheme of things. None of this is to say that we cannot regret how the music has changed, and how that change relates to our personal aesthetic. However, to indulge in that kind of outlook is to dismiss the positives in where things really stand. I have to respectfully disagree with our esteemed OP by pointing out that young musicians are studying Jazz in record numbers. There are vibrant Jazz scenes all over the world; created by these young players who are breaking musical boundaries and making some great music. Sure, I, like many of us, pine for the '50's or '60's Blue Note sound; but, to think that there isn't a lot of great Jazz being made today is not only short-sighted, but does a disservice to the art form. The problem is that we want Jazz to be popular the way that it once was; it ain't gonna happen! That Jazz continues to transform itself (wether any one of us likes it or not) and to thrive (even if not "popular" to the masses) is a testament to its power and timelessnes (unlike many other popular genres). So, what is it that the author of the article is really concerned about? Is he concerned about about American culture as a whole, and it's diminished interest in Jazz? Or, is he concerned about the health and viability of the art? I think that Jazz is alive and well, and the doomsayers in positions of power (critics, press) are, in some ways, doing it a disservice with their proclamations of its demise. BTW, think about how many Jazz mags exist today (in print and on-line) compared to the past. If this, along with the ever-increasing number of young Jazz players, is not an indication of the health of the music, I don't know what is. American culture, as a whole is a different matter. It may be a different matter; but, as with the health of Jazz, I am more optimistic than not. Of course, we can point to the easy and obvious stuff: our obsession with materialism, the impact of social-media and gadgetry and their impact on the development (or demise) of social skills, the negative effects of the incredible wealth that this country offers even the "poor" which leads to sense of entitlement and distortion of healthy values. All of this relates in many ways to what I think the author is trying to say. However, one of the things that is usually overlooked when comparing ours to other cultures and those other cultures' apparently deeper appreciation for art is the simple and obvious fact that our culture is in its infancy in comparison to most of the cultures usually cited; cultures which have a many-centuries old tradition in the arts. American culture is still taking shape and establishing roots, and Jazz is one of its main roots. One of the most provocative comments I have ever read on the subject was by one of our favorite topics of discussion: Wynton Marsalis. Wynton points out that Jazz is about us as a culture and that listening to Jazz is like looking at ourselves in a mirror. I would propose that all of the things mentioned previously which are indications and the causes of young Americans' inability and reluctance to be introspective are a reason why they are reluctant to "look in the mirror". However, I think this will change as our culture matures. On a personal level, being the father of a young (23) visual artist with a deep appreciation for all music, and getting to know his circle of friends, has reinforced what I believe are reasons for being optimistic. |
The Article: I should have stopped reading after this silly paragraph. *****To be able to enjoy instrumental music, you must be able to appreciate abstract art, and that requires a certain amount of effort. Just mindlessly drinking wine, for instance, would not make you a wine connoisseur. Mindlessly looking at colors (which we all do every day) would not make you a color expert either. Great art demands much more from the audience than the popular art does.****** One of the things that makes Great Art, GREAT, is the fact, that a large percentage of humanity, considers it great. Great Art is accessible Art. Art is never great, just because, the artist thinks it should be. And a few 'elites' from NYC does not do the trick either. No one has to 'push' or make arguments in favor of the art of the Masters. It speaks for itself. A person should not have to 'figure out' what the artist is saying or protraying. There are a few exceptions, the one that comes to mind, is Picasso's masterpiece, "Guernica". It's a horrible looking painting, because it represents something horrible. A person without the historical knowledge, might not 'get it'. The Japanese stuff was silly. None of his 'facts' are supported by academic research. And they do not withstand logical scrutiny. The Frogman's post was excellent, but this article did not demand or deserve the time and effort of such a detailed rebuke. Cheers |
Hello everyone - thanks for the reactions to that article. I think Orpheus took most of it in the same way I did. For me, the author's main point actually isn't really about jazz per se, but the fact that Americans don't get instrumental music in general, as opposed to other cultures. I pretty much agree with Frogman's comments as well - I definitely cringed at the Coltrane/Kenny G comparison as well. I also think that Wynton quote is dead on, and also in a way related to the lack of understanding of instrumental music in our culture. I also like and agree with what Frogman says about how popular music changes with the culture, etc. Jazz has certainly survived that. Orpheus, Frogman is definitely correct about jazz studies being alive and well in schools, and also that there are more jazz clubs around in major cities than ever, all over the country. Recording sales are not the only, nor even the main way to judge whether an art form is alive or not. Rok, some of your comments are very puzzling to me. Music without words IS abstract art, period; even if there is a "program" or "story" involved, it too can only be abstract. So yes, appreciating abstract art is absolutely necessary for understanding any type of music without words. Such music does indeed demand much more of the listener, even if the listener may not be meeting the demand. As for your book, yes, all Western music does have a common origin, in the sense that it uses the same language. It isn't just a cliche to say that music is a universal language. This goes back to the discussion of "modes" that Frogman gave. The vast majority of Western music is directly based on just two of those modes, the ones we now call the major scale and the minor scale (Ionian and Aeolian, the Greeks called them, respectively). For many forms of popular music, relentlessly and monotonously so. |
Frogman, my previous post was in regard to vocal VS none vocal, and the quality of jazz in the 50's and 60's, as opposed to now; nothing about who is, or is not studying jazz. Nor do I pine for that sound by current musicians; that would be imitation, and not original; which is something I detest. I'm sure there are vibrant jazz scenes in other parts of the world, because my purchases of "current" jazz are from: Korea, Poland, and India; while my latest purchases of jazz from here consist of the 50's and 60's jazz. This is one time I definitely agree with Rok. Enjoy the music. |
Learsfool: http://www.greatbigcanvas.com/category/abstract-art/?gclid=CM6Dpuj4q74CFU8Q7AodqmcACw&utm_expid=771419-1.-OChkEM_T6G01IS00kMx2g.0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.aol.com%2Faol%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dabstract%2520art%26s_it%3Dkeyword_rollover%26ie%3DUTF-8%26VR%3D3430 Are you saying I have to understand this in order to like Oscar Peterson, Ellington etc...? Cheers |
After some thought about what's wrong with Jazz today, I have concluded that the problem is: The early days of many genres were dominated and substained and nutured by players that formed a community, or culture. They knew each other and played together and many socialized together. They created a 'world' or 'society' in which this great music was produced. This was a world or society within the larger society. Jazz in New Orleans Jazz in New York Kansas City Even LA (cool) Country Music centered around Nashville and the Grand ole Opry. Again a commuinty, almost family. Blues, most of the players from the Mississippi delta knew each other. Came from similiar backgrounds and experiences. Look at a map of MS with the birtplaces of all the blues greats. They were all born and raised in very close proximity. Most people today don't even understand the meaning of a lot of the words in blues songs. Detroit and the stable of artists at Motown. Urban and Close knit. They sang to what is best about being young. I will not say money was not important, it always is. It just seemed like making great art was more important back then. Sadly, all these nurseries of creativity have all but dried up. As the creative players begin to die off, there were no replacements of equal talent. Mainly because the conditions that created and nourished the talent changed or disappeared. Today, it's foremost about money and fame. All individual. Hit and miss. Hope I get lucky. And the idea that "I can be anything I want to be", lack of talent notwithstanding. And this stuff can't be learned or taught in school. Classical music is foreign born and therefore not related to this. We will have to ask the Germans why there are no more Beethovens. :) Today's Gramophone has a great article on David Zinman. He is retiring from the job at Zurich. Great insight into the job of conducting and the relationship with the players. Talked about the importance of the first-desk players. Cheers |
We can't have it both ways! We can't acknowledge that the arts reflect the times and then judge the quality of the art according to what it is reflecting, instead of, simply, how well it reflects it or not; wether we like what it is reflecting or not. These are two entirely different things. There will always be good jazz, just like there will always be good art in any genre. ****The early days of many genres were dominated and substained and nutured by players that formed a community, or culture. They knew each other and played together and many socialized together. They created a 'world' or 'society' in which this great music was produced. This was a world or society within the larger society.**** That is exactly what is going on today. On what do you base the notion that it is not? Young jazz musicians are part of "collectives" on a level never seen before and very much form a community with very clear and serious creative goals. To think otherwise is to shortchange, not only these young players, but jazz itself which has always stood for pushing forward and evolving. These guys (and ladies) are not "into it for money and fame", and to say that making great art is less important to this younger generation of creative musicians is grossly inaccurate and unfair. That we may each like jazz in a certain style more than another style is an entirely different matter. We keep coming back to this debate which ultimately proves to be pointless and very limiting. Yes, it is true that there is no substitute for actual real-world playing experience, but the learning done in school is producing a great number of young players with the kind of well-rounded understanding of the basics and a technical skill that never seen before. And, they don't want to play like the players before them, they want to find new voices. We might do well to listen to more of these players, they deserve our support. Just one example; in support of a local group. http://brooklynjazz.org/index.php |
You guys are missing the point, and what Rok hits on (and the Harlem photo) goes back to the issue of popularity. Jazz will never be as popular as it once was, and there will never be as many movers and shakers living at any one point in time; that is not being disputed. The problem is when blanket statements like these are made: "There were more jazz musicians in the 60's" "It was a jazz community then but not now" "It's about the money now" "Players today don't care as much about producing great art" C'mon now, those things are simply not true, and when you guys are spending a good deal of time and on a regular basis around these players and experiencing these things first hand, then you can make those proclamations with authority; until then..... Look, sharing of ideas is a great thing, but it is important to have a more comprehensive scope. The reason that I feel strongly about this is two-fold: you guys love jazz and I believe you are way too quick to dismiss much contemporary jazz. Not necessarily to like it, but to acknowledge its integrity; there's a lot of new jazz out there worth listening to. But, more importantly, is the irony of this outlook. That outlook does not help, but hinders, the promotion of jazz itself and I hope we can all agree, at least, that the future of jazz is worth promoting. |
Indicators: Could Nica write her book today? Could we have JATP today? Who, currently travels the globe for the State Dept, as Jazz / goodwill Ambassador? The state of Blue Note. The state of DownBeat. Proof of anything? Sure it is. Go out to hollywood to take a group photo of all the great western / cowboy stars. You may find a couple. They are all gone. Because Westerns are all gone. Cheers |
****Go out to hollywood to take a group photo of all the great western / cowboy stars. You may find a couple. They are all gone. Because Westerns are all gone.**** Huh?! Strange analogy, but re your post in general, see my previous post; I said it all before. Just what is it you think, that when I say that there is a lot of good jazz still being played, that I am making this up? As I said before your points go to the issue of popularity; what does that prove? **** So it is possible I am not up to speed on the current crop of Jazz players.**** You think? More like the understatement of the year (thread). I suppose I could turn the tables on you and ask YOU to name a few to prove my point, but I will recommend a few. Some of my favorite young jazz players: http://tednash.com "The Mancini Project" is a favorite, but any of his recordings are worth hearing; as are any of the recordings by the following. http://richperrymusic.com http://www.garysmulyan.com/m/ http://home.earthlink.net/~smoulden/scott/scott.html#lp1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hagans http://fredhersch.com/index.php Lots more, but this should get you started. Cheers. |
**** As I said before your points go to the issue of popularity; what does that prove?***** To most artist, 'popularity' is EVERTHING! It's priceless. It means success. Financial security. It also 'proves' the artist is connecting with the intended audience. Popularity is the whole point of being an Artist. People just have to accept the fact, that the unwashed masses, decide the fate and fortune, of all Artists. :) Cheers |
We can debate the issue of the meaning of popularity ad nauseum, and I could point out that you could not be more mistaken re the motivation of true artists being popularity since to most true artists popularity, even when sought and achieved, is secondary to the simple need to perform their craft; no matter what. However, as concerns this discussion the point that you, perhaps conveniently, continue to ignore is that jazz WAS the popular music at one time and is no longer for many reasons already discussed, that in no way does that mean that great jazz is no longer being played; quite the contrary. Your feelings about popularity as concerns the artist really don't come as a surprise. For some insight into your mindset about this, I would bring up, again, the subject of the great Phil Woods. When first discussed, and after my accolades of his playing you were, at best, unimpressed with his playing and your most positive comment about him was "He's fat". Months later, as you read more and more about him and became more and more aware of the countless recordings he was on and how he was held in the very highest esteem by top players, all of a sudden he seemed to move closer to the top of your list (so to speak). I would suggest that his great stature was there to be heard and did not need the support of anything else aside from your ears. Let us know what you think of the players I recommended. |
Acman3, thanks for the Joe Sullivan links. Nice! New to me. Very harmonically interesting writing; he has a unique voice harmonically. I particularly liked Lofsky's guitar playing. Here's a band composed of some of the best young NY jazz cats. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ_BjtbP_Lk |
Enough already! It seems that Acman3 is the only person still on the music, as opposed to factors surrounding the music that none of us know for sure. Let's get back on the track that will lead to new discoveries of jazz. But before we leave, I think we should all agree to broaden the definition, or not. In order to appease Rok, I've stayed within the narrow definition of the word, while my definition is quite broad. What ever the mutual definition is, is fine with me. Enjoy the music. |
Here's one of the most interesting and forward-looking young saxophone players around and making some very interesting music; and an amazing instrumentalist. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NKgvNKHCBdM And here he is, along with Joshua Redman, as soloist "ringers" in a band comprised of HIGH SCHOOL (!) players. First of all, check out the expressions on the faces of the kids (!) in the saxophone section as they listen to McCaslin and Redman solo; check out that kid on bass playing his ass off. If that doesn't bode well for the future of jazz, I don't know what does. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvy4xbWJmp8 McCaslin's playing (even if a little too long) is an absolutely amazing display of ideas and virtuosity. Redman also plays very well and more melodically, and seems to have a look of worry as McCaslin plays, as if saying: "I have to follow THAT?" But, it's the kids that really impress. Yes, contrary to popular cliche, they can learn a lot in school. Don't worry folks, jazz is alive and well. |
Learsfool: ****Rok, I must agree 100% with Frogman - your comments in your latest post are way off base. Laughable, even. Are you trying to troll us? Seriously?!***** I assume you are talking about the 'popularity' remarks. I don't get the humor. Do you disagree? Name me one artist that is considered great, but not popular with his audience, intended or otherwise. I have no idea what a 'Troll' is. Must be an 'Audiophile' thingy. Cheers |
The Frogman: Donny McCaslin: Both clips were good. The C-Jam Blues clip had a lot of energy and enthusiasm. The tune they chose to play didn't hurt matters at all. He did play longer than he should have. Sometimes, players continue to solo, after the solo is over. Youthful exuberance?? Casting for Gravity: This guy does play Jazz. Would have been better without the electronic stuff. But it was Jazz. It would be silly to compare these young guys with the all time greats, I just expect them to play Jazz. This young man does. They will find their groove, and get even better with time and experience. I just hope he has the patience to stick to it. And, ditch the electronics. Cheers |
The Frogman: Ted Nash: I am sure he is a fine technically competent musician. But this music just did not do it for me. Watching it is interesting, but to listen on CD, I don't see that. He talks too much. The band members seemed uninterested when they were not playing. What happened to listening to each other. Music not fluid at all. just unconnected segments. Gary Smulyan: Liked his stuff. I had to go to youtube. Might not be the one you sent. But I like his style. "Bella Napoli" was very interesting. I could listen to that on CD/LP. Rich Perry / Tim Hagans: Again, great players, just not my cup of tea. Fred Hersch: Non-Jazz. Too many reviews from "The New Yorker" and "Vanity Fair" and sources like that. All saying in effect, he marches to a different drummer. Which is true. But not always a compliment. I will concede that you are a better judge of talent than I am. So if you disagree, I agree you are correct. I just stated my opinion. Jazz, the very word conjures up images of Smoke filled night clubs, small clubs, women, drinking, noise, laughter, dancing, working girls, guys playing for the pleasure of it, blowing over the din, not a sheet of music in sight. These guys are light years from that. Maybe they are beyond it. Maybe better. Maybe too deep for me. Maybe it's what people like these days. Maybe they are technically perfect. Maybe thats's why I have 3000 CDs and 6 Cd players. I can live in the past forever. Because as the man said, "Art Is not linear"! My book just covered "Abstract Music". I have a question. Learsfool made a statement that fits right into what the book says. It's kind of long, will take some time to condense it. Send it later. Cheers |
****I don’t like to hear someone put down dixieland. Those people who say there’s no music but bop are just stupid; it shows how much they don’t know.**** - Miles ****I say, play your own way. Don’t play what the public wants. You play what you want and let the public pick up on what you’re doing? even if it does take them fifteen, twenty years. **** - Monk ****Always look ahead, but never look back. **** - Miles ****I don’t know where jazz is going. Maybe it’s going to hell. You can’t make anything go anywhere. It just happens. **** - Monk |
Miles defending Dixieland?? That's incredible! Nothing wrong with Dixieland, it just sounds incredulous. I was just wondering if this was Miles, Pre or Post, dressing like a buffoon(wynton Marsalis) and looking like Sinbad the Sailor(our OP). :) We won't get into the 'Bitches Brew' Era. Did Monk indicate how a players was suppose to eat and play rent for those 15-20 years? Spoken like a man with a secure income. (from that european countess, or whatever she was) Looking back probably caused Miles too much pain and regret. The last quote from Monk is true, I guess. That's why I have CDs of the stuff I like. Cheers |
Rok, on the off chance that you are actually being serious (which I still cannot really believe) - Haven't you ever heard of someone being called "ahead of his time?" Pick any art form you wish, and a very large percentage of the truly greats in that form were not "popular" during their time. Their art survived anyway because it was great art. Music history is full of such composers - to name just one, the symphonies of Gustav Mahler are now very often played, but during his lifetime, almost not at all. Some of them he never heard himself, except at his piano when writing them. There are many writers (James Joyce, to name one in English) and visual artists one can say the same of - folks who barely scraped by in relative obscurity during their lifetimes, but are now considered one of the all time greats. No one goes into the arts to make money - this would be an idiotic goal. In fact, huge numbers of very talented students majoring in the arts even at the very best schools end up dropping out (if not dropping out of school, at least abandoning it as a career goal), because they decided they didn't want to work as hard as is necessary, since it was not going to bring them the income level they wanted, even if they attained the very highest level in their art. I look forward to your question on abstract art. |
Mahler wrote Classical Symphonic music. People didn't like his music Mahler and his music are not POPULAR Mahler is not great Mahler dies New people begin to play and listen to his music New people like his music New Orchestras play and record his music Now Mahler's music is very POPULAR Mahler is now recognized as a great composer. I don't see a problem Cheers |
From my book. " I would suggest that instrumental music is the most abstract art yet conceived by humankind. some might quibble with me; but in this I know I'm right." He goes on to say; "Drawings or paintings, representational or not, are physical objects and exist in at least two dimensions. You can see and touch them." "Poetry and literature, while not concrete objects, are written in a language that a person would understand. Therefore we fully understand what the artist is trying to say." "But what is instrumental music? It is music that has no words, no literary information beyond its title, to explain why it exists, and why it sounds the way it does. It's neither physically dimensional nor concrete......Music has to be played, and when instrumental music is played, it exists only in the ether as concussion waves assaulting our eardrums." "Color me a literalist, but as far as i'm concerned, that's about as abstract an art as I can Imagine." NOW: AS I was reading this, the local FM station was playing 'Don't cry for me Argentina' Instrumental version. My questions are: would a instrumental version of a song originaly written with words, be abstract? Would it be abstract, if the person had never heard the words before? Horace Silver wrote many instrumental Jazz songs. They would be abstract. Dee Dee Bridgewater did a CD of his music, put to words. Her words. Is her CD abstract? Does it change Silver's music from being abstract? Why are sound waves assaulting the ear drums more abstract than photons of light assaulting our eyes? Speaking of abstract paintings here. Thanks for your brilliant insights. You guys up to speed on "triads"? Cheers |
Rok, thanks for your impressions of those young players. I don't know what you listened to by Ted Nash, but I would give him another listen; he really is a great player. I must say that I don't know what the hell the comment that "he talks too much" ("he's fat"?) has to do with wether the guy can play or not? Try this (and you can ignore the visual "accompaniment" by the Youtube poster): http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E-njySw6I_U I just had a thought that relates to the "abstract" question (I will give Learsfool the first shot at that one) and visuals when listening to music. As nice as videos of live performances are, I think we have had ample proof of the problem with what we SEE during a performance coloring our reaction to the music. I think it is fair to say that the quality of the music should be judged on its own and not be influenced by wether a performer does too many facial contortions, "dresses like a buffoon", or "talks too much". Anyway, the business of "popularity" is getting a little tiresome and the main point is being missed. Facts: -Artists don't go into the arts for the money or popularity. -That jazz is less popular now than it once was does not mean that there is no quality jazz now; or, even, less jazz now. I hope my recent links have demonstrated this amply. ****Name me one artist that is considered great, but not popular with his audience, intended or otherwise.**** That is a very strange and illogical question. If an artist has an audience, is he not, by definition, popular? Nonetheless, a couple of thoughts: Why then, did so many greats (Dexter Gordon) have to move to Europe?: because his audience was shrinking; iow, jazz was becoming less popular in the USA. Did that make him less of a player? And, btw, most of these guys didn't move to Europe for the applause, they moved there to make a living because there simply wasn't enough work here. Food for thought: ****In Europe, they like everything you do. The mistakes and everything. That’s a little bit too much.****. - Miles The reason that I feel so strongly about the subject of "popularity", particularly as concerns the young crop of players, is that I know a lot of those guys and I know how they struggle to make ends meet while maintaining an incredible sense of dedication to their music with interest in popularity being so far behind their interest in honing their craft and making great art that it is impossible to describe. In spite of a much smaller audience base compared to the past when jazz was the popular music, jazz continues to thrive and move forward. Let's remember that jazz artists themselves were often reluctant to call the music "jazz" because they felt the name was too limiting. That Miles seems to be defending Dixieland in that quote is not the point of his comment, but that limiting ourselves to a narrow view of what jazz is is stupid. Re triads: Don't have any more time now, but I will quickly point out that a triad is simply a chord comprised of two thirds stacked on top of each other. Four kinds of triads: major, minor, diminished and augmented. There is much more to it, and while I think you are a great candidate for and would strongly encourage you to buy yourself a keyboard (electronic if you don't want the expense and hassle of a real piano/you would not believe what can be bought for around $250) as a learning tool, for now, a printout of a keyboard off the internet would make things much much easier to understand if you want to go further. Cheers |
O-10, I am not quite sure I understand what the problem is. I can appreciate and respect Acman3's choice to not engage in much of the debate/discussion, but, over the last three days alone, there have been close to a dozen links to new music and no reaction to them except from Rok and I who are the most "guilty" of discussing the "factors around the music". Some of us find it very interesting to discuss the factors around the music. In my opinion that is, in great part, what leads to new discoveries, because by discussing these is, in fact, one of the most important ways to "broaden the definition". The problem is that, as usual, we can't have it both ways. If we simply want to share links to music that we each like and leave it at that, that is fine; but, if one doesn't want to be subject to discussing the "factors around the music", then I think those posts should be free of proclamations about things that may need to be challenged when they have no basis in fact or reality. There have been, and continue to be, comments made about the state of jazz, what is jazz, the quality of certain artists, etc. that are simply not rooted in what is the accepted wisdom (and, in many cases, fact) on those subjects. There is a deep and pervasive romanticized and politicized (for lack of a better word) influence on many listeners' views of the sphere of the art world that is simply incorrect, and this can lead to a bias and very premature dismissal of certain music without first giving it a fair shot. As you have often pointed out, the reasons for our individual likes and dislikes is subjective, but it is important to understand that there are, in fact, certain objective standards that separate good art from bad. I commend Rok for wanting to broaden his horizons by learning more about, yes I will say it, the nuts and bolts. |
*****That is a very strange and illogical question.***** When I read that, it hit me like a bolt out of the blue!! THE GOOD LORD IS TESTING ME!!!! Just like Job. But the real shocker for me, is that not one of our 'pros', commented on the performance of Water Music and Fireworks by the French Orchestra. ESP, the conductor!! What do you think of this guy? Last Chance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q27aV-IiQWo Cheers |
****But the real shocker for me, is that not one of our 'pros', commented on the performance of Water Music and Fireworks by the French Orchestra. ESP, the conductor!! What do you think of this guy?**** Well, if you insist; and, please understand that my lack of enthusiasm for this performance and Niquet is the very reason that I had not commented. I, too, love the sound of period instruments and I love performances that educate about the history of the music; but, I have some issues with this performance. First of all, for a really great performance of this beautiful music on original instruments try Trevor Pinnock with The English Concert; and for my favorite with modern instruments but still using period performance practice try the Marriner/St Martin In The Fields. The Niquet performance by comparison has some real problems with the ensemble playing. There are some major and distracting problems with intonation, especially the horns and trumpets. While period instruments (natural trumpets and horns) are harder to play in tune than modern instruments, recordings like Pinnock's don't suffer nearly to this degree. Additionally, having the woodwinds standing was an odd choice. It looks good, but there is an imbalance between the winds and strings, the winds being too prominent in relation to the strings. Overall, not a memorable performance on musical grounds; but, impressive visually and educationally and there is value in that. Niquet is the type of conductor that drives me nuts. There is, again, a sense that it is about what looks good. His technique is showy and dramatic with large motions that serve no musical purpose. Like the Andre Rieu performance, it's not my cup of tea. BTW, the Baremboin/LVB is great; he is one of the very best classical musicians on the scene today. There is a historical inaccuracy in the presentation of the Niquet performance. The Music For Royal Fireworks was composed for wind band (no strings); that is what was heard at that first royal performance. It wasn't until later that Handel reorchestrated it for full orchestra as heard on the Niquet performance. Lastly, you'll just have to take my word for this (perhaps Learsfool will chime in on this), and I bring it up because you have often commented about performers appearing to be working too hard at "performing"; but, I would bet that those musicians were coached to "perform"; to make gestures that looked good and made them appear to be "involved". This goes to my previous comment and it's something that, having been in those shoes, one just knows. Glorious music 'though. |
*****First of all, for a really great performance of this beautiful music on original instruments try Trevor Pinnock with The English Concert; and for my favorite with modern instruments but still using period performance practice try the Marriner/St Martin In The Fields.****** I have the Marriner / SMIF CD. I am almost embarrassed to admit I have six CDs of this music. The first one I purchased years ago was "The Academy of Ancient Music / Hogwood" It's on authentic instruments also. ****Niquet is the type of conductor that drives me nuts. There is, again, a sense that it is about what looks good. His technique is showy and dramatic with large motions that serve no musical purpose.***** My thoughts exactly. I remember thinking, this guy is demonstrating that maybe Conductors are not needed past rehearsals. But the man is French, so looking good is important. Did you check out the shoes? I understand that Andre Rieu is an excellent musician, that found he could make a lot more money as a showman. His stuff is not serious. I just love 'Amazing Grace' on bagpipes. The band Barenboim conducted was the Israeli-Arab group he established. He did all nine symphonies during that Proms. There is a DVD out. Thinking of getting it. Like I need more sets of LvB. I thought the horns were the highlight of the performance. They sounded so 'real / natural', on my computer setup. I love that sound. Not disagreeing with you, just to my amateur ears. And, the visuals were great. I think that makes a tremendous impact on a person's perception of the performance. The sound and video were excellent by youtube standards. Thanks for your review. Very insightful. Cheers |
Wow, lots of posts since I was last able to check in! Sorry guys, but I am in the very busiest part of my season right now and simply don't have time to listen to all these links. In a couple of weeks, I could go back and do so, but right now I just can't. Rok, I pretty much agree with everything Frogman has said. I actually had a music theory major in my undergrad as well as my horn major, so I am qualified to teach it, and have privately. Triads are the basic building blocks of pretty much all Western music, until you get into the 20th century avant garde composers. Triads continue to be the basis of all popular music, including even most jazz, though it is much more experimental. Frogman's suggestion of buying a keyboard is a good one, however I would also suggest a set of books written by a guy named Paul Harder. They are "programmed" courses - meant to be taken at your own pace. You cover up half the page that has the answers as you work through. There is an accompanying CD. He has one for Fundamentals of Music that would be great for you, and then there are others that reach the equivalence of freshman and sophomore college music theory, much more than you would probably want to know, unless you really got into it. Now for the abstract art stuff. Basically, yes, I agree with the author of your book. As to your questions - yes, music is more abstract than painting. As the author says, painting is two dimensional - you can see and even touch it, and can look at it over and over again. Music is only heard, and then it doesn't exist anymore, at least that particular performance, unless it was recorded (Richard Strauss and other composers and conductors and performers were horrified at the very idea of recorded music when the possibility first arose, by the way - recordings have fundamentally altered the way people think about music compared to even just 100 years ago). This is much more abstract. if someone had never heard Don't Cry For Me Argentina before and did not know that it had words, it would be purely abstract for that person. The other questions are more interesting - you are getting into aesthetics now. Someone putting words to an established tune definitely gives a meaning to the result that is not abstract anymore. However, you could also make up a completely different set of words and seemingly (or really) giving the music a totally different meaning. Which one would be correct? Would either be at all close to what the composer may have been thinking/feeling? He/she may be completely horrified. These questions do not have a simple answer. Another fantastic performance of the Water Music, by the way, is the English Baroque Soloists, conducted by John Eliot Gardiner, who is my favorite period instrument group conductor. The natural horn playing is superb, far better than any other I have ever heard, including the one Frogman mentioned, which is a good one indeed. Didn't see the video in question, but Frogman is probably correct that they were coached. Video has also fundamentally altered the way people think about music, especially performing, in mostly negative ways. Now there are huge numbers of people that think if you aren't wildly moving around or making funny faces, you can't possibly be emotionally involved. That's a load of crap. Hope that decently answers your questions. Need to get to bed now. I promise I will go back and listen to some of these clips you guys have posted when I get time. |
