Jazz for aficionados

Don't mean to answer Schubert's question to Learsfool, so I will leave the issue of string players to him.  I will say, however, that I have been on tour to Korea twice; in 1997 and one year ago in 2014.  The positive change in the country during those 17 years has been extraordinary.  Living standard appears to have improved dramatically.  There is a level of order, efficiency and attention to detail in just about every aspect of life that is amazing.  Tech savviness of the general population puts even this country to shame and there is a sense that the country as a whole is on a mission.

Thanks O-10 !.
Same to you and to all  !

Schubert, you're really on to something there. I was going on and on, talking to my minister, and using the phrase "The reality is.........."; and after patiently listening, he responded "Orpheus, there are many realities". Indicating when we look at the same thing, we don't necessarily see the same thing, and whatever the thing is, it's our relation to the thing, that gives us our "reality"; hence there are many realities.

While we know what we're talking about, that should keep everyone else confused; but that's their "reality".





Enjoy the music and the holiday.

The back and forth about what music is has less to do with what it is than what one believes ,consciously or unconsciously ,  the purpose of music is .

Learsfool. there are a number of Korean string players in the Twin Cities groups ,notably in the St Paul Chamber band.
It is hard to believe how good they are. The SPCO has two young lady viola players that are the best string players I've ever heard.
Any clue on whats up in Korea ?

Frogman, me and Mutt watched dog videos until I went to sleep. Here's something I put on this morning that you might like.



              [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcf455NwMOY[/url]



What I like best about this CD is the continuity.






Enjoy the music.

Learsfool, that statement you're referring to, was made in jest more or less, but it was in regard to "improvisation". Actually I witnessed shows that were improvised night after night, and I found it unbelievable.

Equally unbelievable are "pit musicians". Beyond the fact that each musician played several different musical instruments, was how they played written music that sounded like improvised jazz; that boggled my mind; and I forgot, this music had to correspond with action going on, in a play on stage.

Could you elaborate on these musicians?





Enjoy the music.

Learsfool, excellent post!

Rok, I think you need to put the spiked eggnog away now 😜.

[URL]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw9M6cNHO9g[/URL]

O-10, this one's for Mutt:

[URL]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo8EvrzsUL8[/URL]

And tell him that I'm glad at least someone at the O-cienda has some sense.

Hi O-10 - I must say, that is a very interesting definition of jazz, and I would like to hear what the Frogman thinks of it.  

The definition of music is a very basic and good one, too.  I am constantly telling my private horn students that music is the creation of sound in time - the time aspect being as important as the sound aspect, as it is the time (meter and rhythm) that gives the sound a framework, and makes it make sense to the listener.   

This leads to another point that I think has to do with the subject of your post I was objecting to (and by the way, have you explained what point you were trying to make?  If so, I haven't seen it, though I am not 100% certain I am seeing everything in this new forum format):  

When we are discussing heart, or feeling, in music making - it is very important to remember that although this is obviously an essential, it is not the sole essential thing.  One can have all the heart and soul in the world; however, if one cannot express it, because of whatever deficiencies of technique, or an inability to play in time, or an inability to create the right sound, or play in the appropriate style, to name some examples, then one will not really be a good musician.   It is quite possible to have a huge heart and soul, yet not have any real MUSICAL feeling.  All of us musicians have had students like this, and they are sometimes the most frustrating ones, as they have the passion, but not the ability.  One must be able to create good sounds, in time - these qualities are just as important as the heart and soul in the making of music.   That's where the technique, etc. comes in.  

Of course, the reverse example is also true.  Someone can have incredible technique, and fantastic time, but not be a very expressive player.  There are many professional musicians fitting that description, unfortunately, but there are a great many more students who never do win an orchestral audition or regularly get hired to play in jazz clubs, and they have no idea why, because they know they can play their instrument really well.  In fact, this is perhaps more true today than it has been in the past, since the technical standards for every instrument have now risen so high, especially in classical world, but also in the jazz world as well.  The kids coming out of school today have so much more technique than even 25 years ago - but it has come at the expense of other important aspects of music making in general, like learning to phrase really well, to name one aspect important to all genres.  

OK, I'll shut up for now.  

Rok, Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible.

The quality or state of being actual or true. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence. That which exists objectively and in fact.

music is: the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity. b : vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony.

Jazz is: American music developed especially from ragtime and blues and characterized by propulsive syncopated rhythms, polyphonic ensemble playing, varying degrees of improvisation, and often deliberate distortions of pitch and timbre.

Well Rok, there you have it.

We are lucky to have The Frogman on this thread.  He is a professional Jazz and Classical Player.   And I do know that making a living as a Musician is not an easy thing to do.   Esp in a place like NYC, where the entire world is trying to make a career in music.. If he was not very, very good, he would not work.   No room there for 'pretty good'.

Therefore:  EVERYTHING The frogman says about music is true.  We can place more or less emphasis on things as pertains to our own taste in music, but what he says is Gospel.

If he says a group is out of tune, then, they are out of tune.  If you like them in spite of that, that's cool.   That's your right to like music that appeals to you.  We all have that right.

We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.  That's why I don't think the term 'reality' is appropriate.  Reality means 'real', which to me, means FACTUAL.  

 We can't have differences of FACT over who is the best  Jazz Trumpet.  We can never know the Best.   We can just give our opinion.   AND, opinions is order to be valid, have to be in the realm of the possible.  You say Morgan, he says Hubbard, and I say Armstrong.  All are within the realm of the possible.  They are all valid opinions.

Naming some guy who plays locally in a club, is not a valid opinion.

And let's remember this is the season of:
Peace on Earth, Good Will towards all Aficionados

Cheers

Rok, I forgot to include, "The Frogman's Reality", and you forgot to include "The Frogman's Kind of Music"; now I guess you want to know what I mean by that. Since I'm not quite sure, you'll have to discern for your self.

Frogman speaks "MUSIC", and that's a language I never took; hear tell they taught it at Julee Yard, that's that school in New York where them classical musicians go to. My huntin dog perks his ears up when Frogman speaks. Did I tell about Mutt? He's my huntin dog that I read to, and I always tell him, "This is what Frogman said", and his ears perk right up; when Frogman speaks, he listens.





Enjoy the music.

*****   It really is true:  "there are only two kinds of music, good and bad".  *****

In the ear of the listener,  this is absolutely true.   And I think this is what the quote means.   There is no definitive 'list' of the good and bad.

Cheers

*****  Time and time again I have seen music posted on this thread that fits into a poster's favorite style and it seems that simply by that virtue alone that posted music gets automatically bumped up to "good" in that poster's mind when it is simply mediocre or worse.****

Some examples would be nice.

Cheers

***** I think all this goes back to what is really important and what I tried explain in my previous post: it's really knowing how to identify really good music making that matters most. *****

This is not what matters most.  Identifying and sharing music that a person likes, or even dislikes, is what matters most.


Good vs Bad music:

Ravel said "there is no music there' referring to his composition 'Bolero'.   I'll admit it did cause riots in Paris.  People took their music a little more serious back then. :)
Tchaikovsky didn't think much of '1812'.   I think he said he was sorry he wrote it.

So, sometimes, declaring music bad, for whatever reason,  could be just one person's opinion.  Even if that person composed it!!  The great unwashed may beg to disagree.

The Bey Sisters being prime examples, on this thread,  of how greatness can be trashed, in  the name of technical correctness. :)

Cheers

***** Mingus:  I would call it great music.  I don't much care to classify it.  What does that prove really, if one thinks about it?*****

Not trying to prove anything, but since we were talking about 'modern' Jazz, just wondered if a tune like 'Hog Calling' was an example of Modern Jazz.

***** Agree with the first commnet.  I will tell you that I have heard/read Zappa reffered to as a rock musician far more than as a jazz musician, so who is it that calls it jazz?*****


"Zappa is the first, and so far only, artist to be inducted into both the Jazz and Rock and Roll Halls of Fame." -- google

Apparently someone calls it Jazz.   Esp since he went into the Jazz hall first.  Think of the players who are NOT in the Jazz Hall of Fame.

But this goes back to what I said, and to which you responded "huh?"  They say his music was hard to categorize, so into the Jazz bin it goes.  The catch-all dumping bin.  My point is, it Just shows a lack of respect for, and understanding of,  the music.

Cheers

What the sage person who made that famous comment implied and, for the sake of this thread 😏, should have added in order to make it absolutely clear is: "there are......, regardless of genre".

****You are confusing recently recorded with Modern. No one is saying every single note, or tune is boring, just the weight of the material.****

i dont think so.  As you have pointed out, words matter.  Your comment was "Modern jazz is boring".  Why, then, not say: "some (or most) modern jazz is boring".  There is that absolutism mucking up the works again.

****I have no problem with Zappa or his music. The Arts should be a safe haven for eccentrics, weirdos, and all such marchers to a different tune. I just don't understand why they call it Jazz.****

****BTW, how would you classify Mingus' 'hog calling blues'. My all time favorite. ****

Agree with the first commnet.  I will tell you that I have heard/read Zappa reffered to as a rock musician far more than as a jazz musician, so who is it that calls it jazz?

Mingus:  I would call it great music.  I don't much care to classify it.  What does that prove really, if one thinks about it? I think all this goes back to what is really important and what I tried explain in my previous post: it's really knowing how to identify really good music making that matters most.  We all tend to have favorite styles and genres.  Time and time again I have seen music posted on this thread that fits into a poster's favorite style and it seems that simply by that virtue alone that posted music gets automatically bumped up to "good" in that poster's mind when it is simply mediocre or worse.  It really is true:  "there are only two kinds of music, good and bad".  

****Learsfool, Acman3 and the OP all out of hibernation on one day. Must be Global warming.****

That's actually very funny; as long as we can keep finding humor in all this, I think we'll be alright.

****I suggest we forget the 'reality' stuff, and stick with 'opinion'. I think that would be more appropriate for our discussions.****

Not possible; certainly not all of the time.  Allow me to explain why:

This business of subjective vs objective keeps coming up and continues to be misunderstood and misused.  Misused, because it is used as a fallback position when there is disagreement that is backed up by a provable reality.   To use O-10's example:

One can have the opinion that Lee Morgan was the world's greatest trumpet player.  Someone else can disagree, but there is no way that person could disagree that he was great.  Why?  Because the key point in this argument is always missed: that when judging the relative merit of art one needs to use both objective AND subjective criteria.  I may not agree that Morgan was the greatest because I may prefer the style of some other trumpet player or feel that someone else is a better technician, but if one has a fairly complete understanding of what it takes to do what Morgan did with a trumpet, both technically and stylistically, there is no way to dispute his greatness.  Put a different way:

Listener A can post a clip of a jazz trio and proclaim it great.  Listener B disagrees because he can point to provable and demonstrable problems with the playing such as out of tune playing, bad rhythm and amateurish improvisation.  This is not simply opinion, these (especially the first two) are demonstrable via the use of recognized standards within the art world.  Out of tune is out of tune, if someone is playing with bad rhythm, simply because any given listener doesn't have the capabillity to discern it or does not understand those standards does not make it less of a reality.  Still, lets really stretch and be very "politically correct" (aargh) and not judge any listener's discernment or lack thereof:  If listener B can discern these problems, describes the problems and deems them "deal breakers" for him, this is not simply opinion.  So, fine, anyone can choose to keep someone else's disagreement in the realm of opinion, but why isn't the dissenting voice entitled to consider it fact? 

The biggest shame in this endless debate is that what gets missed is the idea that there is always much to learn and more and more layers to understand; no matter what level of understanding anyone already has. 

OP's Post:

Thanks for clearing that up. :)  I suggest we forget the 'reality' stuff, and stick with 'opinion'.   I think that would be more appropriate for our discussions.

Cheers

Learsfool, Acman3 and the OP all out of hibernation on one day.   Must be Global warming.

Cheers

The OP is well known for his empathy for foreign-born noise makers.

Cheers

Rok, this was to be a post before yours re O-10's return (I was not able to post it because I was somewhere without Internet connection):

"Rok, nicely done; it worked 😉"

Uh, wow!  There have been some very bizarre posts here today, to say the least.  Frogman has done a pretty good job rebutting Rok's oddball post of his five points - one out of five ain't bad, as he said.  Numbers 1 and 2 are both completely ridiculous.  

However, even more disconcerting was to read what O-10 suddenly posted,  saying "A top "jazz musician" is someone classical musicians like Learsfool don't believe exist."  WTF??!!  What on earth are  you referring to??  Certainly nothing I have ever said, on this board or elsewhere!!  I am not at all sure I know what your point is, but the main point to be made about what I think you are saying  about making music is that what you are saying is true of ALL musicians - no matter what genre or style they play.  (That's a horrible sentence, but no time to edit, I'm off to play a show)  And no one I know of has ever said it wasn't.  So I honestly don't understand what you are even talking about, O-10, and I am beginning to share in Frogman's despair about ever being understood here......please explain?  

You guys won't believe this, but when I saw the clips Acman posted, I said to my self, "I bet this draws the OP out from Hibernation".   Damned if it didn't.   I knows my OP. 

Cheers

O-10, Clearly in the fusion camp. That's why Rok liked it so much. 

Before any discussion can begin with me and other "Aficionados", we must discern what is and what is not. Also, somewhere in between, what may or may not be.

We'll use "Objective" and "Subjective" reality as a foundation for these discussions. Objective reality is one that exists independent of our minds; 2+2= 4, that's objective reality. Lee Morgan is the best trumpet player ever. That's subjective reality. This reality can only exist in the minds of those who say it is so.

If I say I'm Napoleon Bonoparte, that can be my "subjective reality" and it's as real to me as any "objective reality". As you can see, there is a world that exists between "objective" and "subjective" reality.  

People in the nut house have their own reality, and when you discover that, it's pointless to argue with them. There are also jazz enthusiasts who lay claim to being the ultimate authority, (the ultimate "objective" authority) in regard to jazz.

Since we are discussing a subjective genre of music, within a subjective universe (music), there can be no objective reality; consequently, anyone who lays claim to such a reality, is closest to those who have their own reality.




The only thing I'm going to throw into this dogfight is my friend, the professional jazz musician who lived with me for an entire Summer and never practiced. Now there can be no doubt that when he wasn't sleeping, he was "practicing" in order to learn how to play his instrument. One does not get to play with many of the jazz musicians you have on record without knowing how to play their instrument, whatever it is.

Since I'm not a musician, we never even talked about music; I was more interested in his life as a professional "jazz musician"; it was never dull. Now I realize why he never practiced. What was he going to practice? I had all of his records, and the music he played on stage was different than anything I had. He was practicing when he was on stage, and his music sounded better than anything I had on records. I don't believe that he knew what he was going to play.

A top "jazz musician" is someone classical musicians like Learsfool don't believe exist; that's someone who simply lets the music that's in them come out; either you got it, or you no got it; but if you ain't got it, you can't get it; no matter how many schools you go to, or how much you practice.



In regard to Hiromi, she's in a different universe, and her music shouldn't be compared with "jazz jazz". While I liked it, I don't think it should be judged by old standards.






Enjoy the music.  

Hiromi The Trio Project:

AAUGH!!!!!!!!!!

Exhibits   #2 and #3   ??

Check the bug at  8:39.  Even it is jumping ship.  Maybe they have day jobs as bug exterminators.  Better than dangerous chemicals.

Cheers

Seriously fun!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7I2bvqwKFg

http://youtube.com/watch?v=d88GGBH_aNc

Under JAZZ in wiki.

Silliness indeed!

Subgenres

• Avant-garde jazz
• Bebop
• Big band
• Chamber jazz
• Cool jazz
• Free jazz
• Gypsy jazz
• Hard Bop
• Latin jazz
• Mainstream jazz
• Modal jazz
• M-Base
• Neo-bop
• Post-bop
• Soul jazz
• Swing
• Third stream
• Traditional jazz

Fusion genres

• Acid jazz
• Afrobeat
• Bluegrass
• Crossover jazz
• Dansband
• Folk jazz
• Free funk
• Humppa
• Indo jazz
• Jam band
• Jazzcore
• Jazz funk
• Jazz fusion
• Jazz rap
• Kwela
• Mambo
• Manila Sound
• Nu jazz
• Nu soul
• Punk jazz
• Shibuya-kei
• Ska jazz
• Smooth jazz
• Swing revival
• World fusion

Regional scenes

• Australia
• Azerbaijan
• Brazil
• Canada
• Cuba
• France
• Germany
• Haiti
• India
• Italy
• Japan
• Malawi
• Netherlands
• Poland
• South Africa
• Spain
• United Kingdom

You are confusing recently recorded with Modern.  No one is saying every single note, or tune is boring, just the weight of the material.

I own two(2) CDs by James Carter.  I like the one I posted.  I ran into Dolphy very early in my Jazz journey.

I have no problem with Zappa or his music.   The Arts should be a safe haven for eccentrics, weirdos, and all such marchers to a different tune. I just don't  understand why they call it Jazz.

My idea of Fun in Jazz:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m-ofRT3ni4[/url]
The entire album is boss.

BTW, how would you classify Mingus' 'hog calling blues'.  My all time favorite.  

Cheers

Let's play (says the defense attorney 😠):

****Today's message from Jazz Heaven.

Eric Dolphy -- OUTWARD BOUND

  And to think, at one time I considered this awesome great, a semi-noise maker. Stereo Review disagreed, so I bought him anyway. Another one I grew into. Looking back, I sometimes cringe at myself. I put his LPs right next to Burroughs' book, "Naked Lunch", on a Shelf labeled, 'Try again in a few years'. :)****

....... hmmm, can't really add anything; it's really all there.

James Carter:  "modern" jazz by any standard.  First question: if it's "boring" why post it? 

****But, this is a very good performance**** - Rok 

Huh?

"Your honor, please direct to witness to answer yes or no, and yes or no only!"

C'mon Rok, first of all it was said in jest (mostly).  Now, look at your post again.  You decry the "absence" of an authority, then you follow it by saying that your point of view has not been listened to.  Can't have it both ways. 

****If we were arguing this question is court, as opposing attorneys, YOUR Zappa clip would be MY 'exhibt #1". A 'smoking gun' if ever there was one. After playing it, the People would rest****

Segue time again (even if unintentional): Smoking gun perhaps, but that gun would probably blow up and fire backwards.  The people do indeed rest.  Did you know that Frank Zappa was invited to testify in Congress and express his objection to censorship and the importance of freedom in the arts?  That alone makes him a pretty serious guy.  Now, let's try to not get mired (again) in the silliness:  I countered some your assertions and asked for facts; let's hear some substantive and provable rebuttals.

***** so feel free to declare yourself the "authority*****

There you go with the straw man stuff.   Never said, or even implied, that I was an authority on anything.

Cheers

If we were arguing this question is court, as opposing attorneys,  YOUR Zappa clip would be MY 'exhibt #1".   A 'smoking gun' if ever there was one.  After playing it,  the People would rest.

Cheers

NY Jazz Qt: great stuff.  Frank Wess' tone on tenor is probably my favorite of all time; velvet with just a hint of the modern.

Btw, re my comment ****Dont know who it is that holds that belief, but I agree with the premise. One out of five ain't bad, I guess.****

I meant I agree with Rok's premise, not that all improvised music is jazz.  Like I said, one out of five ain't bad (I think).  ☺️

Fun (and pretty serious):

[URL]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2lZrPnN46Qk[/URL]

[URL]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0hpcWPxBzpI[/URL]

Interesting topic.  But, just when I think that there is a more open minded (and correct) understanding of the topic, the apparent "progress" gets shot in the foot by the tendency to be absolutist about things.

Acman3, good observations and questions about the topic of seriousness vs. fun in music.  To be clear: I did not mean to imply that all modern music, or all music, is or should be "fun"; simply that I think modern music could stand a little more of it.  I think you are correct in that more complexity tends to steer things into the "serious" camp; but not always and not necessarily.  First example that came to mind is not generally considered Jazz at all but is both very serious and very fun: the music of a Frank Zappa.  I think that Rok is correct when he says that music can be serious and fun.  My agreement with Rok's comments on the subject ends there, however, and this is what I mean by the tendency to be absolutist and  to make blanket statements.   

****Modern Jazz is Boring.****

A blanket statement to be sure and a more incorrect one is probably not possible.

****Musicians think that if they can play an instrument, they can play Jazz. An extension of "Jazz is anything I say it is". ****

With all due respect, a pretty ridiculous comment.  I know more musicians (and very accomplished ones at that) that will be the first ones to admit that they can't play jazz,  than musicians I know who DO know how to play Jazz.  

****The idea that you can learn to play Jazz in Music school. You may improve your skills as a player, may learn theory of improvised playing, but you can't learn the feel for the music.****

Are we going to go there again?  Jeez!

****The commonly held belief that art must change with time, and that change is synonymous with better / improvement.****

Who is it that holds that belief?! This is something that some on this thread keep bringing up.  There is no such held belief!!! The issue is simply that some, myself included, don't believe that new art is necessarily worse or that old art is necessarily better.  That is not the same as saying that it is better or an improvement.  A red herring and a totally useless stance!

****The belief that all improvised music is Jazz by definition. All Jazz may be improvised, but all improvised music is not Jazz.****

Dont know who it is that holds that belief, but I agree with the premise.  One out of five ain't bad, I guess.

****The lack of an authority to define what is and what is not Jazz. That would be considered politically incorrect. If it's instrumental, and not R&R, then throw it in the Jazz bin.****

Huh?

****BTW, I have been pushing this point of view since this thread began. But who listens to me****

Hah!  Now we're getting somewhere.  I am not much into political correctness (as I think you know) so feel free to declare yourself the "authority" 😊 on this subject; but, I am not looking for an authority, thank you very much.  

Speaking for myself, I'm going back to having fun now.

I do have to admit you are consistent, even when wrong.

New York Jazz Quartet:

Great tune, played by great players.   Sir Roland carried the day.

Cheers

Music can be fun and serious at the same time.   What music cannot be, is fun and boring at the same time.

According to my Webster, Boring is an antonym of Fun.  Modern Jazz is Boring.  Why?   Many reasons.   Some, in no particular order:

1) Musicians think that if they can play an instrument, they can play Jazz.   An extension of  "Jazz is anything I say it is". 

2) The idea that you can learn to play Jazz in Music school.  You may improve your skills as a player, may learn theory of improvised playing, but you can't learn the feel for the music.

3) The commonly held belief that art must change with time, and that change is synonymous with better / improvement.

4) The belief that all improvised music is Jazz by definition.  All Jazz may be improvised, but all improvised music is not Jazz.

5) The lack of an authority to define what is and what is not Jazz.  That would be considered politically incorrect.   If it's instrumental, and not R&R, then throw it in the Jazz bin.

BTW, I have been pushing this point of view since this thread began.  But who listens to me?

Good question though.

Cheers

Or is the complexity of the music itself, which I love, the reason for seriousness? Anyway, look forward to any thoughts from anybody on the subject.

Ran across some New York Jazz Quartet today. Sounded really good. Shows there was more than fusion in the 70's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwT3SU3a91g

James Carter; I think as you both said has great talent, but I have trouble following, and this strangely from a guy who is fine with free jazz, What he is doing, He has to much pyrotechnics all at once. 

Frogman, I have been thinking about your discussion of why most jazz is not  fun? What were the points and counter points of your previous discussion? It seems as most art matures it gets more serious. Do we through the discipline of practice, practice ,practice, beat the fun out of learning students? 

****It does not seem as if he has lived up to the initial hype****

That pretty much sums it up for me re Carter.  A VERY accomplished multireedist who, in spite of his forays "off the reservation" plays with a decidedly "retro" sensibility, especially on tenor.  A very exuberant player with tons of energy.  However, he is one of those players who's playing always makes me say "take it easy, take it easy", and leaves me feeling "so what?".  I respect his ability a great deal, but don't much care for the music.  But, that's just me.  

James Carter -- JC ON THE SET

I only two CDs by Carter.   This one and ''The Real Quiet Storm'.  This is his debut recording.  It does not seem as if he has lived up to the initial hype, but who does.  I enjoyed it.  Everything seems to sound good to me lately.

But,  this is a very good performance.  The group is comprised of younger / modern players.   Carter has been known to leave the  reservation and venture off into that Free stuff.  The notes list him as playing 'Saxes'.  Modern day Roland Kirk?  

When he hits those very low notes, he reminds me of the sounds put out by the spaceship in 'close encounters of a third kind'.  Those aliens could Jam!!

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6m0N9ZHwqU[/url]

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz8cWbFNHUw[/url]

Cheers