Rok, I know you're out there! I want you and other aficionados to know that I'm "studiously" adding to my collection, and economy of purchases is of the utmost importance.
Before, when I tried to stay current, it turned out to be a big waste; current musicians seem to capable of only one very good cut per album; this meant the rest of the album was a waste.
Acquiring almost everything by any one musician also proved to be uneconomical; that's because even the greatest had some flops; however, I've discovered one musician this might not apply to, Lee Morgan is his name.
Not until I began adding his albums did I discover that maybe it is possible for a musician not to have a bad album; I'm not talking about anything he was a sideman on, but the albums he put out and led.
In the past there was no way of sampling every cut on an album before you bought it, but now, thanks to "you tube", it's possible to sample other cuts beside the one that made you decide to purchase this particular album.
While in Lee Morgan's case, this only goes for the genre "Hard Bop", that still covers a lot of territory, and adds a lot of music without waste. This aficionado is on his way to Nirvana; that's Heaven to the uninitiated.
Enjoy the music.
|
Chazro, thanks for the nice post. The links don't seem to work on my IPad, but I know that 1979 American debut album well. I posted that post-defection clip to stay with the 80s theme. I became aware of Irakere even before that 1979 Columbia release, when the year before a relative in Cuba sent me copies of "Grupo Irakere" and "Brouwer/Irakere" on the Cuban label "Areito". I was knocked out when I heard that band. To me one of the great poetic ironies about the history of that band is that the musical project created by the Cuban government, the "Orquesta Cubana De Musica Moderna", in order to show the world that jazz was not forbidden in Cuba (anymore) and which spawned "Irakere", would eventually lead to the defection of two of its highest profile players. |
|
It was always a real treat to catch Bob Parlocha's show on my morning drive to the gym. Not only did he have vast knowledge of jazz, but we was also humble and teachable ... especially when it came to sharing music from young up-and-comers. Definitely a sad day when we lost him. |
Frogman - Cool video of Irakere. My one caveat would be that by 1986 D'Rivera & Sandoval had already defected and by this time the band, while by no means abandoning their Jazz roots, had largely become a dance band. They became one of the pioneers of what was later to be known as 'Timba' (Cuban 'Salsa' music would be the easiest and quickest way to describe it). The album I referred to was released in 1979. Here's an interesting track from it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ma59D5iBoQ
And here's the entire record. Warning! - this is NOT easy-listening! A total antithesis of the Poncho Sanchez gringo-friendly sound! But there was a reason there was such a heavy buzz about them at the time. Dizzy Gillespie in particular championed their cause! Recorded at the Montreux fests in NY & Europe. If you listen to the audience, they're really into it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7KMJ_dTawI |
Sorry to hear about Mr Parlocha. Unfortunately, I did not know his work. On a related vein, I would highly recommend WBGO 88.3 FM or on line out of Newark, NJ. Fantastic station with some very personable and highly knowledgable hosts. |
|
Amen, O-10, AMEN.
He will be in heavy rotation in my prayers for a long time. |
Schubert, I share your sentiments. When I listened to him on the radio, I felt as though he was a friend sharing his knowledge of the music we love, he had such a comforting voice.
|
I read Bob Parlocha passed on the 15th, age 76.
Feels like a friend has died. |
Chazro, you are, of course, correct about the use of the term "Fusion". Notice I didn't capitalize "fusion" along with Latin-Jazz and used the term to mean "marriage". I know exactly what you mean and agree it's best to not use the term loosely. One of the things that I have always found interesting about Poncho's records is that the horn players are guys who come mainly out of the jazz tradition. Gary Foster, one of my favorite LA reed players is often featured. Not a criticism at all, and a generalization to be sure, but the horn sections on his records tend to have a less aggressive sound than Latino horn sections, and the blowing tends to have a more fluid feel. I think this works very well with the band's rhythmic vibe. This is not a criticism of either Latino or non-Latino horn players, just an acknowledgment of a generally different approach to playing that gives the music a different feeling or flavor and is one of the many subtle musical choices a band leader makes that makes listeners react one way or another to certain music without the listener necessarily being consciously aware of it. |
Congueros!! Now we're talkin' my language!;) Poncho Sanchez is a direct link to the great Cal Tjader. He played with him and continues to this day playing that West Coast style of Latin Soul Jazz. The late Clare Fischer also was an alumni of Cal Tjader who very much kept that 'Tjader' style going after Cal passed away. One thing though, I wouldn't ever categorize Sanchez' music as Latin Fusion. I can easily rattle off lists of recordings that can be categorized as such, but Poncho wouldn't be on any of those lists! The best, most intense, and a personal favorite would be the American debut live record from the Cuban supergroup; Irakere. Of course, the marquee players in that band were Chucho Valdes, Arturo Sandoval, & Paquito D'Rivera but every member of that band was a monsta! I own so many records by most of the members of Irakere! VAYA!!!;) |
One of my favorite congeros, and one who gained prominence in the 80s is Poncho Sanchez. To my ears, a distinctive approach to Latin-Jazz fusion; a "fusion" which hasn't been looked at much so far: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GcYwjio8E-M |
O-10, I am glad you arrived at a definitive conclusion for yourself. Since it is "concealed" in my last post (presumably, you mean last post directed at you), are you going to give me a clue......? :-) |
Learsfool, thanks for the great posts. All bias aside, you did a great job of summarizing what I have been trying to say; you shouldn't underestimate your writing skills.
Regards. |
Frpgman has made some more excellent posts - I would add only one thing in response to O-10's latest post about subjectivity and his example of 30 different people seeing 30 different things when looking at the same object. No one is denying this. However, what I said and what Frogman has been saying is also true - each of these 30 people will have different levels of knowledge about the said object, and can impart this knowledge to others, who then will have a much better frame of reference to look at the object more objectively and less subjectively, when they take a second look, and a third, and a fourth, etc. This will always be true, even if they have looked at the object 500 times. Especially if we are talking about a great work of art. You can always learn more about the object looked at, and therefore appreciate and love the it more. I truly do not understand why anyone would not want to do this about something they love as much as you love jazz. The only thing you have to fear is fear itself.... |
Chazro, listening to it now, it is an amazing recording. |
"Aficionados" and devotees of the 50's and 60's; I just got an album you should have if you don't already have it. Just when I thought I had every thing in those two decades worth having, I discover that I don't, and that's the beauty of it. I don't think of vocals as "must haves" ; consequently I'm probably missing quite a few, but anything, and everything by Clifford Brown, Clark Terry, Harold Land, Richie Powell, Max Roach, and George Morrow when they were at the top of their game, is a must; "Dinah Jams", has all of them and more.
Enjoy the music.
|
Frogman, believe it or not, we have reached an agreement and come to a definitive conclusion in regard to "subjective" and "objective" realities; it's concealed in your last post; rest well.
Enjoy the music.
|
Chazro, killer band and killer record! Adventurous and intensely creative record from one of the greatest minds (and heart; just in case :-) in jazz. Love it. |
Alex, that was a fantastic post and very well stated; I agree with every word of it. I won't repeat some of what I posted in response to O-10, but it addresses some of your points. I think the main obstacle here is the defensiveness that, while being a very natural human reaction (especially when it concerns something we love), can blind us to the entirety of what the other person is saying. With respect, it is the defensive person who would use labels like "ignorant" in the context of a discussion such as this. When have I said anything of the sort to O-10? As I said to O-10, there is a contradiction in the idea that one camp can be at liberty to be critical ("that is not jazz", "I didn't like this or that", "this is the best era" etc.) in a way that goes counter to another's viewpoint, but when it is pointed out that a performance is subpar and, importantly, precise reasons why are given, all hell breaks loose.
**** what if the composition is basic, playing of the key, and ability of musicians very limited, to say at least, and you still like it? Do you think that only an ignorant could like such 'music' or perhaps there is something in 'music' beyond craftmanship that can touch us in a 'mysterious ways' that cant be always just explained ?
As concerns my comments about O-10's recent post "Chan Chan", which I found fault with, please note that I said "there is obviously something that resonates with you in that performance". It seems you are suggesting that there is no room for criticism of music that someone likes; a silly idea imo. Most importantly, what then is the point of a discussion and, as O-10 himself proposed in his original post, "review" of the music? If someone likes a performance that is off-key and shows a low level of craft, that's fine with me; but, am I not at liberty to state why I don't like it? I think we all need to be comfortable in our own skins and be willing to accept different viewpoints. |
****Frogman, our problem in regard to the way we perceive "jazz" is becoming clear; to me, composition is every thing, to you it's how well the musician blows his horn. For example, Michael Brecker blows a beautiful horn, but I didn't care for the composition. In the case of Wayne Shorter, I don't like short clipped phrases ****
No, no, no! O-10, with all due respect, either you don't read my posts in their entirety or the chasm between our realities is even greater than thought. No one has commented more on the compositional aspects of the music, and their importance, than I have. I think that at the root of the disagreement is the tendency to be absolutist about these issues. Iow, because I mention that "how well the musician blows the horn" is important, then that is perceived as the only consideration if it fits the agenda. That is a very simplistic, not to mention inaccurate stance.
****Frogman, on the issue of "Subjective Reality" I insist that we not agree to disagree, but come to a definitive conclusion****
I must say that I find a conspicuous irony in all of this; and which, a cynic might say, is nothing more than disingenuousness. What I mean is this:
The adherent to the subjective reality idea claims to want an all-inclusive view of reality; iow, everyone's reality is equally valid. Putting aside the folly of the insistence on the dismissal of long-held standards by which performance quality is judged, a person would think that this more "liberal" stance would be tolerant of other viewpoints (realities). Moreover, the subjectivist puts up far more rigid preconditions for liking or not liking something; for instance, "composition is everything", "I don't like short clipped phrases", etc. By contrast, the advocate of the more "conservative" objective reality idea is not only willing to "agree to disagree", and has acknowledged that the subjectivist finds value in his chosen approach, he encourages the appreciation of ALL styles of music and playing. However, the subjectivist cannot allow room for the other reality and insists on "coming to a definitive conclusion". For me, the contradiction is obvious.
O-10, I am not quite sure how you propose we come to "a definitive conclusion". It may come as a surprise to you, but I have little interest in coming to a definitive conclusion; and, not because it is obvious that it won't be possible. More importantly, I acknowledge your reality and my only interest is in pointing out that there is a different reality that some may or may not find is the path to deeper appreciation of the music. I will say it again, with respect, we will have to agree to disagree. Well, I will.
Regards. |
Frogman, reasonable man can add very little to your and Learsf.last post. But, let me try, even if that may say more about me, making declarations, aldo I think it is just an clarification. IMHO, if you look at the history of any art, in each and every era you will find that art has some caracheristics which can be considered as strong points of that author, that style and finally that time.
Due to different reasons, there is always a different accent on what is considered as 'value or virtue' in some style and in certain time. So, I have taken the liberty to say that I certainly consider some era's superior than others,but I must add,in those aspects that I
value as important. Further more, if we would really want to establish what is 'good' or 'better' and why is it so, we should start a philosophical discussion on aesthetics and its ethics. I could not agree more with Learsfool who says that education is way to better understanding, but let me point to one other contradiction. When I say 'simple' that has different meaning to us. Yes, composition or melody may be simple, but if its executed right, you would like it. But, what if the composition is basic, playing of the key, and ability of musicians very limited, to say at least, and you still like it? Do you think that only an ignorant could like such 'music' or perhaps there is something in 'music' beyond craftmanship that can touch us in a 'mysterious ways' that cant be always just explained ? In this sense, I would not be so keen in dismissing O-10's perception of music as limited one, before we are sure that we covered all bases of the subject, and not only regarding jazz. |
Alex, you express your thoughts very well; and I appreciate them. What we are talking about is a recurring theme on this thread. The appreciation of music is no different than just about any endeavor in as much as there are many many levels that a person can reach in the understanding of it. The choice to do that or not is obviously a very personal one. My feeling has always been that to learn as much as possible about it is a good thing which helps the appreciation and enjoyment of it. With all due respect, what I think you confuse, and is often confused in these "talks", is the distinction between quality of the performance and quality of the music as a style. Contrary to what you suggest, I like "simple" music as much as more complex music; the issue is wether it is played well or not. It is not that I dislike some of the clips that have been posted because they are "simple", I disliked them because they were not played well. Just this morning I was having a conversation with an orchestrator who was commenting how difficult it is to keep things (music) simple and good; sometimes complexity hides poor quality. Anyway, I think that this kind of critical thought is sorely missing on this thread, and the ability to be critical that way in no way detracts from the emotional enjoyment of it. There is much talk about favorite styles and there is much posturing about which era produced the best music; a futile exercise. IMO, the key to becoming a better listener is to learn about the musical values that separate a great performance from a mediocre one; regardless of style. This will, in turn, help the listener understand and appreciate different styles of music. That may or may not be what some listeners want. The problem as I see it is the declarations about the superiority of this player or that player, or this style or that style without substantive justification for those assertions other than it is what we prefer.
Bottom line: there is great music from all eras. To declare one superior to the other says more about the person making the declaration than about the music itself. IMO. |
Hello all - I have been away from this board for several days, and may be for several more. I have read the conversation going on between O-10 and Frogman with great fascination. O-10, your latest statement, "Frogman, our problem in regard to the way we perceive "jazz" is becoming clear; to me, composition is every thing, to you it's how well the musician blows his horn."; is incorrect. In fact, it is quite backwards - it is Frogman who is talking much more about what you are calling "composition," in other words, the music itself. You have been referring throughout to your subjective reality of your emotional response to the music. What Frogman's objective reality is about is the actual music itself - how it is put together, and how it works - much, much more than simply how the musicians are playing their instruments, though this is indeed one aspect of it.
The problem here, as someone else besides Frogman has alluded to (sorry don't remember who off the top of my head to give proper credit) is that unfortunately, you do not have some of the fundamental knowledge of music that is required to get into some of the deeper discussions that could be had about it. There are things about this objective reality that simply cannot be understood without this knowledge (this is why some of the things Frogman says seem subjective to you, when in fact they are not). This is precisely why I have urged you, O-10, in particular to educate yourself some more about the music you love so much - until you do, discussion is much more limited than it could be. It would open up whole new worlds of understanding and appreciation of everything that you already love about your music. Unfortunately, apparently not only do you not believe this, but even further, you seem to believe acquiring more knowledge to be totally incompatible with gaining more love; and this is by miles the single most frustrating thing for us musicians when we are trying to help you deepen your understanding, and therefore your love of music.
I'm a very mediocre writer compared to Frogman, but I hope the point comes across. I may be away from this board for a while again, but this is always the very first thread I check (in fact, pretty much the only one I check on this site anymore). It has been great, and I am sure will continue to be so. |
Frogman, on the issue of "Subjective Reality" I insist that we not agree to disagree, but come to a definitive conclusion.
Subjective reality and how is it different from objective reality? Objective reality refers to the reality outside your mind (in the physical world) – the objects and events that make up the “raw data.” Subjective reality refers to the reality inside your mind. It is the meaning you assign to things and events.
People see different things even if they are looking at the same object.All objects, dreams ideas and “truths” are different for each person. I’ve put “truths” in quotes because as you’ll see, “truth” is subjective! Essentially we all live in different worlds; we may have things in common with other people, but because of our background and our subjective interpretation of the world – our unique perspective – our world can be polar opposite from the person sitting next to us.
The Perception Game
Where you
Imagine yourself and thirty of your friends and neighbors standing in a row, each person an arm’s length from the next and facing in the same direction. In front of everyone is an object, say a huge marble rectangle – a modern sculpture rising thirty feet into the sky. Everybody sees the rectangle. But they see it from a different perspective. One person may see a monolith because they are facing the broad side of the rectangle; to them, the sculpture is imposing and intimidating. The person next to them sees the same monolith but it is exciting because he is a mountain climber. Another, down the line, will see the corner between the broad side and the narrow side; to them, the sculpture may appear very interesting since the quality of light is different on each side of the sculpture. Another person sees only the narrow side of the rectangle and sees something absurdly tall, something that looks like it will topple easily. Tall people see the rectangle from a different angle than short people.
Subjective reality: beauty or danger?Each person is 100% correct in what they perceive. But they don’t necessarily understand the points of view of anyone else in the line of people because NO ONE CAN SEE PRECISELY WHAT OTHERS SEE.
Can you see how mind-blowing this is?
The gray area between objective and subjective realities occurs when you assign a meaning to something that exists in your mind – such labeling your house as “beautiful.” When you start talking to other people about it you bring your subjective reality into the realm of the objective.
If you believe something is beautiful, you will experience it as something beautiful. If someone believes your house is the ugliest thing ever built, their experience when seeing your home will not be pleasant. Each person’s experience depends on the meaning they assign to objective reality.
This is how misunderstandings and differences of opinion occur. You may think “this house is beautiful” while another believes it’s the ugliest. In each person’s reality, the house is perceived differently. Some people will agree with you. In their experience, the house is beautiful. Other people won’t care one way or the other – in their subjective world, your house isn’t important enough to label.
This is what’s meant by “beauty is in the eye of the beholder!” Beauty is a purely subjective concept.
Enjoy the music.
|
Have any of you heard Shorter's latest, 'Without A Net'? Astounding!! It's a live set featuring his over-10-yr-old band featuring Danilo Perez, John Pattitucci, & Brian Blade. This band is a Jazz supergroup! Highly recommended. |
Frogman, our problem in regard to the way we perceive "jazz" is becoming clear; to me, composition is every thing, to you it's how well the musician blows his horn. For example, Michael Brecker blows a beautiful horn, but I didn't care for the composition. In the case of Wayne Shorter, I don't like short clipped phrases (Miles liked short clipped phrases in his last music) While the Wayne Shorter clip was of the "definitive jazz" type, I've gone past that; now I'm more into music without classification, like this Santana for example; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bJouVEzr0kEnjoy the music. |
Alex, nothing is more important than communicating the truth as you perceive it, and you do that quite well. Your perceptions are correct. From what I can gather about audiophiles since I've been here, is that they are very much unaware of things outside of that arena.
"Cataclysmic" changes have occurred in the economy of this country since I was on the south side of Chicago in 56. Those changes have affected everything, including music. You are correct in your perceptions about the changes in society that are reflected by music.
Once upon a time there were many places of entertainment that hired musicians, now there are relatively few when compared to times past, this means it's much harder for a musician to make a living; that and other factors account for radical changes in music over time. For whatever reasons, we are both in harmony in regard to the "jazz" of the 50's and 60's.
Enjoy the music.
|
O-10, I would have much preferred to engage in dialogue about Wayne Shorter and his music, but.....
I THINK I understand what you are saying. Some thoughts:
I have never sat an "average person" down in front of my system who didn't, at least, say "Wow, that sounds great"; that was after my asking them to choose the music.
My system, while of a fairly high pedigree, is far from "perfectly" set up (by the standards of what is possible); I would rather put my energies elsewhere. It does sound pretty good, with the goal being for it to sound as much as possible like the way live music sounds with priorities being rhythm and timbre. Actually, soundstaging is probably it's main shortcoming with "space" that is actually smaller than real; but I get your point (dig). As far as the "subjective audiophile reality" goes: you are absolutely correct, but I have to say: so what and who cares? Most audiophile systems that I have heard don't sound the way that live music sounds to me; most, not even close; and many audiophiles don't have that as a goal, wanting their system to simply sound good to them. I have no problem with that. However, when an audiophile wants to make a case for why his system sounds "like live" or "accurate" or more "accurate" (like live music) than mine, AND can also tell me that he is a regular and frequent concert goer; THEN we can talk.
Btw, what did you think of the Brecker/Ogerman "City Scapes" clip? Thought it might be right up your alley.
Regards. |
Frogman, english is not my mothers tongue, that prevents me of a more complex explanations of my thoughts. Of course that music in time has a constant flow, and we can say that it has evolved, even more so if you have point of view from musicians stand point, like you do. But, imagine, if someone would look at society in general, in lets say late 50's,in some place where jazz was created, and than returned to the same place one decade later, I think one hardly could recognaise it. My points is that changes to music came with 'outer' factor,social and economic, which than impacted its protagonists on different ways and led them to create music that some express as their own artistic creative feeling, others maybe had the ability of craftmanship that allowed them to follow the 'fashion' of the moment. Maybe it is just my thoght, but 'older'jazz music seems to me to be more genuine, with clear thought and feeling behind it, like it had less influence from 'outside' but came from 'within', more it was 'musicians thing', rather than later music, which seems 'corrupted' by fashion, music industry, faster way of life, and other numerous soc.and econ.things. Also, if I may add something to your conversation with Orpheus, you two are looking things from two very different points. I admire your education, and your ability to articulate your thoghts and feelings into words, but sometimes your understanding of craftmanship that stands behind music creation, it just might you prevent to enjoy some more simple pieces of music, that are not necessary 'fake'. In that sense, O-10 seems to rely more on emotional receptors. Some music, Dizzy's session 1970 https://youtu.be/JjvbZEPmHdE |
Wayne Shorter is one of the very greatest jazz musicians to have ever lived.; up there with the likes of Bird, Coltrane amd Miles in stature. Like Coltrane, Miles (an probably Bird, had he lived) his music was constantly evolving and moving in a new and different direction which reflected the times. He is undoubtedly one of the greatest jazz composers with compositions that are especially sophisticated and often complex; but never for the sake of complexity. One of the most fascinating aspects of his playing for me was how it became more and more economical through each successive stage. He has gone from a player that could burn it up with the best of them in a hard bop fast tempo, to one who (by choice) can say what he has to say with just a couple of well inflected and poignant notes. In the early 80s, after his time with and as co-founder of Weather a Report, he started his own "fusion" (there's that word again) band. "Atlantis" from that period is one of my favorite records from the 80s. To my ear he crafted tunes that struck a rare balance between sophistication via the use of counterpoint and complex meter changes, and being tuneful and catchy in an almost "pop" way. Excellent sounding also and a real audiophile sleeper. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H9z6-qehv4whttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z3qXILIfPuw |
Acman3, great clip of Woods and Harrell. As I know you are aware, Tom Harrell is one of the (relatively) unsung heroes of the modern jazz trumpet scene. I am particularly fond of his flugelhorn playing. Beautifully warm sound with fantastic time feel and harmonic creativity in both horns.
For anyone who wants to get "geeky": since we have been talking about "fusion" and David Sanborn, it should be noted that John Purcell, the alto player in the Jack DeJohnette clip was Dave Sanborn's "sound consultant" for many years. If there is any interest, I can relate some pretty wild stories about that relationship. |
O-10, these conversations are obviously limited by the nature of an on-line forum. Sometimes comments can come across as overly opinionated or even judgmental. To my way of thinking, participation in a forum like this presumes confidence on the part of participants in their own reality. You demonstrate that and I respect that fact. But, what does a dissenting voice do with the conflict created by their own and different reality? I hope we can all agree that as long as respect is shown, the voicing of that different opinion is appropriate.
I must say, that the posture that a different reality is irrelevant to any given participant creates, imo, the kind of conflict that renders participation itself moot and irrelevant. To my way of thinking, if dialogue is not the goal, then what is.... aside from learning what others' like? Iow, I don't think that the goal should be for each of us to just show what good taste in music we each have, or to be told what good taste in music we all have. If we are not all prepared to hear about others' different reality or opinion what then is the point of all this. Your goal in starting this thread as stated in your OP was to "review" recordings, and presumably offer opinions of agreement and disagreement. My main issue with the discussions is when I express a point of view about a player (positive or negative) and offer precise reasons why I feel the way I do, and the disagreeing voice simply says "you're wrong" or "I disagree" or something along the lines of "well, it's just how I feel" and nothing more. I don't call that a discussion or dialogue.
On the issue of objective/subjective reality we will simply have to agree to disagree. There are, in fact, many objective aspects of music making that determine for me and many others wether the music or the playing is good or not. Of course subjectivity plays a major role, but it is not the only factor. There is nothing "wrong" with not wanting objectivity to enter into our sphere of knowledge, but just as the other approach may render those opinions irrelevant to you, the subjective approach renders those opinions irrelevant; an unfortunate reality all the way around. |
Alex, I agree with you entirely in that music reflects the time of its creation; the same can be said of any art. That is a very important point, and one to keep in mind when judging any music and it's value. We may not like a certain music, but what we are saying is often that we don't like what it is saying about the time. How well it reflects the time is what determines whether it is good or bad. What I don't agree with, if I understand your comments correctly, is the idea that music (art) does not evolve. Music evolves the same way as people and society evolves and good art reflects it. Had not been a Charlie Parker it is highly unlikely that there would have been a Coltrane. Nice post. |
Frogman, when you are alone in your "audiophile" listening room, playing an LP on your perfectly adjusted TT, with one of the best cartridges, basking in a holographic sound stage that makes your listening room seem like a space much larger than what it is, you are experiencing a "subjective reality".
The average person sitting in your same sweet spot might not experience anything. I never mention anything about my rig to a non audiophile (who's in the listening room on a purely experimental basis) and they just go on babbling while the music is playing, never do I mention anything about the rig.
"Subjective Reality" is what all audiophiles live everyday without even thinking about it.
Enjoy the music.
|
Acman, Threadgill was original, and very good; he had non of the "stereotypical" trappings of jazz, nor does he like the word "jazz" to describe his music.
Enjoy the music.
|
|
Alex, I agree with you. I have no problem with anyone sticking to the wonderful musicians of the past. I am as big a fan as you, of them.
I think of it as a river with many tributaries, YOU decide where you want to go, and where you want to stay. Another analogy might be the western expansion in the US, some set down roots and stayed to build cities and be shop owners, and others kept going west, to new open areas. It takes all kinds! |
Frogman, as far as "Billy Bangs" is concerned, absolutely nothing you and your friends think is relevant; that's because it is "my" reality, subjective reality though it may be, it's still "my" reality, and that's why there can never be an "objective" reality in jazz.
Your analogy of 2=2=5 is null and void; that's because you are using an "objective" analogy in reference to a "subjective" subject, which is jazz.
Enjoy the music.
|
Jack DeJohnette,Lester Bowie with Abercrombie and Gomez. The theme is called 'Silver Hollow' from JDJ album 'New directions' from 1978. https://youtu.be/YVjX1EhNbLwI certainly like the 'old directions' more, but have this in my collection. I belleive that every music style reflects certain aspect of some particular moment in time, it represents it, or maybe it is a witness of time, like a architecture is. There are many different reasons that are creating the esthetics of some period, both economic and social, and aldo we have tendency to call that long stretch of music with a same name as 'jazz', there is no doubt in my mind that we are speaking about almost totaly different styles of music, that indeed share same roots, but still are different, like the architecture is, or mind frame of the people of anothere era, fashion or almost any other social or intellectual aspect is. For this reason every music era or style is basicly unrepatable and there is no point searching for it in later times, not there is sense in pointing in 'new' ones and think of them as a 'same but better' or 'evolved' thing. I belleive that classical music is much more clear on that subject, aldo with advantage of much longer time frame and those distinctions we can see or hear much bettter |
Acman, never heard of Ronald Shannon Jackson, or "Yugo Boy", but I thought it was boss.
|
Frogman, I'm dealing with some urgent issues at the moment, but I will get back to you in regard to Billy Bang and "Chan Chan".
Enjoy the music.
|
|
|
O-10, a lot to comment re your latest post. I don't understand what you mean by the recent posts by Acman3 and I sounding like music from the 50s and 60s; especially Acman3's. Take the recent Woody Shaw clips that I don't think received any commentary (perhaps that is an example of what you mean). Shaw was a player whose style sounds nothing like the players from the 50s and 60s. Please clarify.
****Frogman, and some others seem to think or feel that musicians who go to the best schools, and progress to the point where they have developed the highest skill level on their chosen instrument, can exceed the jazz made by the giants of the 50's and 60's; but I don't believe they can.****
I am afraid that is a gross mischaracterization of what I have said about the matter. I have never said anything about about new players "exceeding" the greats of from the 50s and 60s. My stance is and has always been that there are players today that have BUILT UPON the musical legacy of greats. Recent comments by me related to (I believe) Dave Liebman and Michael Brecker who built upon Coltrane's legacy and, yes, in some ways I guess one could say "exceeded" what was considered possible in improvisation during the 50s and 60s. There is nothing novel about this idea. It is the nature of the music (constant evolution) and not understanding this points to what Chazro pointed out: the misunderstanding, or, more accurately, lack of understanding of modern jazz; and, I would add, music in general. Re "schools":
This subject keeps coming up. I believe the issue is not that I have ever said that recent players who have attended schools are superior jazz players BECAUSE they have attended schools; it would absurd to suggest that, and again, a mischaracterization as I never suggested that. What I have pointed out is there are some great players who happen to have attended schools and are worth listening to. There is a vibrant jazz education system that is producing some really great players. The real issue re this subject is the apparent bias in your and others' comments against players who HAVE attended schools. IOW, BECAUSE they have attended schools they are somehow necessarily inferior to the "street schooled" players; an absurd and ill informed idea. Re "objective reality":
This one's a tough one. I am not sure how to address this one except that you yourself, and perhaps ironically, made the case for me. First with your comment:
****While that seems illogical, music is not a science with a mathematical preciseness, it's a lot more subjective than objective;****
Precisely. Well, at least you are allowing room for an objective reality, which was really what I was trying to say. Yes, at the end of the day, if a given listener likes something that another one does not, there's not much that can be said. However, there is actually a well known relationship between mathematics and its "preciseness" and music; and that's a fact. As concerns this discussion what I mean is this:
Your recent Billy Bang post. Apparently you like it. I think that, at best, it's pleasant with a reasonably idiomatic feeling for an ethnic tune such as that. Ask most Cubans how they feel about that rendition of "Chan Chan" and they will tell you that it's barely mediocre. Is that not a reality of sorts? Now, Billy Bang's playing. I realize there may be something in his playing that resonates with you. I hear improvisation that is almost embarrassing with extremely rudimentary violin playing which is horribly out of tune. I assure you that as far as the violin playing goes that would be the reaction of the vast majority of violin players. Is that not also a reality of sorts? A person can insist that 2+2=5 till he's blue in the face, but that does not make it right.
Regards. |
|
|
|
Acman, I'm glad you took the argument head on because all of your recent posts have been quite original. Something stuck in my my mind from a past post, but let's call that irrelevant.
Enjoy the music.
|
