Jazz for aficionados
'If you cant fight them, join them'...Buster Williams, from year 1979. Played with Miles, Hancock,etc. Considered as one of the great 'sideman's. On this record 'Heartbeat' he is joined with Kenny Barron on piano... http://youtu.be/oxLO5OQdhow |
"Would it not be of infinitely more value to accept the fact that there is creativity taking place in any decade and any style?" Infinitely. That's why there are those things called "standards". It gives you a "standard" by which to compare contrast and most likely judge how two different artists perhaps from two totally different musical eras interpret and go about doing their thing differently in whatever way. All they have in common is most likely a popular song that remains popular to some extent because people continue to respond to it for whatever reason. In case anyone cares. Each generation of listeners will appreciate the artists of their era on their own terms or they will not appreciate them. But playing standards howver one might artistically chose to do it provides the only concrete way to compare diverse talents over the years. FWIW. It may not be worth anything to many, which is fine, but it is worth something to those who do care. There are so many ways to enjoy music. that's why so many people take the time to imbibe. |
Frogman, I hope you would not mind me saying this, but perhaps you are the one that simply refuse to comprehend the fact that someone can actually understand what are you talking about, but still not like it. Music wise, I mean, of course. I cant speak in Rok's name, but there is no difference in any other type of art form. I dont belleive that any art lover appreciate equally all styles that emerged through time. In fact, knowledge works both ways, it can help you to like something, but can also confirm someones dislaking about certain subject. Rok is very unique in his expressing, but I dont think that you should take that as offensive or proof of his ignorance. As far as litlle I have read his posts, he had much worst thing to say about some other much more serious stuff than it is art, but still there is lot of self irony in his words, so it should not be held against him. I dont want that anyone gets the impression that I am holding any sides here (not do I think that there are here) but like I said, the music that we spoke recently is not my favourite, and not because I do not understand it or appreciate the creative forces behind its creation, but because it does not correspond with my inner being,no matter if revives and readapts time and space, if it fails to emarge me in its world than I choose to listen something else that it does. |
Rok, now that O-10 has weighed in and, as you like to say, restored order, I feel better about moving forward. So, the discussion will be (wether you like it or not) about more than just "fusion"; whatever that is. Further, it should be pointed out that by "whatever that is" I simply mean to suggest the futility and pointlessness of trying to put a strict label on music of this era (any era really). That is something that I truly do hope you learn to appreciate as you grow as a listener; that labels are, more than anything, a hindrance. Your rigid definition of the music is certainly a hindrance to having a dialogue. The other aspect of the difficulty of having a dialogue with you is of a more personal nature and has been discussed before: you refuse to understand that there is no difference between telling someone who is saying: "hey, check this out, this is interesting music" that the music is just noise or by noise makers, and calling him a jerk. But, hey, as I have said before, shrink is above my paygrade. So, more than fusion will be discussed, and since that has been settled I feel free to humor you and address your questions and comments re "fusion". What is "fusion"? Well, to my way of thinking the answer could not be more obvious; but, hey, let's state the obvious anyway, for Rok's sake. "Fusion" is a fusion, a marriage, of two or more styles of music. As I said, that should be obvious; and, as O-10 correctly pointed out, that fusion can be of a wide variety of styles. However, part of the con-fusion is due to the fact that while "fusion" is a generic term, it has come to mean, in the mind of most listeners and because of industry labeling, a fusion of jazz and rock. Sticking point: as with any art, music and the fusion of various styles can, and usually does, happen slowly. A jazz artist might release an album that has subtle elements of rock that may not be obvious, and this is simply an indication of the evolving nature of his music. The before-mentioned Joe Henderson is a good example of this. So, what are the obvious signs that a jazz artist is fusing rock into his jazz background, or that a rock artist is bringing jazz into his "recipe": The most obvious almost doesn't need to be mentioned. Jazz-rock fusion almost always uses electric instruments in the rhythm section; as rock does. A key aspect of the playing style has to do with with rhythm; rock "swings" in a different way than jazz does. Tap your foot to a rhythm, any tempo; those are downbeats, usually (but not always) four to a measure. Now, think about the obvious relationship between music and math. Each one of those "beats" can be, and is, divided in time into portions of the amount of time that it takes to go from one beat to the next; subdivisions. The most important and obvious subdivision is what is generally called the "upbeat". The upbeat in rock is often the subdivision exactly halfway between any two downbeats. Again, tap your foot: 1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4 etc. Now think about a high-hat cymbal on the upbeat exactly half way between the beats; that's your most basic rock beat. In jazz that upbeat is not placed half way between; instead it is placed closer to the following beat. This is what gives jazz that "swing" feel. Think: TAT...taTA, TAT...taTA, TAT...taTA. Difficult to put into words, but hopefully you get the point. That's some of the "academic" stuff, I hope it's of some value to someone, and I assure all its just scratching the surface. Now, there is a truism in art that says that what most determines what is good and not so good is how well the art reflects the time of its birth; wether we like what it says about the time is a different matter. That is at the core of the pointlessness of a comparison between Bird playing Donna Lee and a bunch of "fusion guys" playing Donna Lee; proves nothing of value and is an absurd comparison. Would it not be of infinitely more value to accept the fact that there is creativity taking place in any decade and any style? I don't think Rok has any idea how ridiculous Bird would sound playing something like this (and not for lack of trying): https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=qM-gSeBjKk8 Or Trane playing something like this: https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=ZPoT0thwduo Oh yeah, a small detail, that same "fusion guy" could also play like this: https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=UQx96DsZXxA The point? One listener's musical universe does not define everyone else's. And an attempt to do so, because of our need to justify our own likes, biases and narrowmindedness by denigrating someone else's wider scope is, well...everyone has to decide for themselves just what that is. As the OP generously likes to say, enjoy the music. |
All the Jazz Greats did not drop dead on December 31st 1969. We should not forget that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJaD09M5Iko&index=8&list=PLAC85D311E5B23FE6 cheers |
Alex, I liked your clip of Herbie Mann. I saw him in Chicago in 69, he was dressed immaculately; had on a tan continental suit, light brown highly polished boots, and his performance matched his appearance. Nina Simone and Miles were on that same billing. Herbie was first, followed by Nina Simone, and Miles was last. Nina was everything and more than you could imagine her to be. Miles was last and late. Every body was talking about Miles new music, when at last "Here they come". Miles was dressed in a buckskin suede vest with the long fringes hanging down, I don't remember what else he had on; he could have been naked, and I still would not have seen anything but the buckskin vest; "Jokes over, funny Ha Ha, now somebody go and fetch the real Miles". Enjoy the music. |
Alex and O-10, Thanks for the input: Well, I'll go first: Got this from Wiki. They mention "Jazz Approach" and "Jazz Elements". They never call it Jazz. Jazz fusion is a musical fusion genre that developed from "mixing funk and rhythm and blues rhythms and the amplification and electronic effects of rock music, complex time signatures derived from non-Western music and extended, typically instrumental compositions with a jazz approach to lengthy group improvisations, often using wind and brass and displaying a high level of instrumental technique. It was created around the late 1960s. The term "jazz-rock" is often used as a synonym for "jazz fusion" as well as for music performed by late 1960s and 1970s-era rock bands that added jazz elements to their music". -- wiki My personal opinion is, it was just an invention to give the "hip" folks of the 70's something to embrace. Those that considered themselves too "Hip" for Rock and their unwashed moronic fans. Then some of the Jazz guys followed the money. It is what it is. I listened to it, bought it, thought it was Jazz. All before I knew better. Cheers |
O-10, thanks for weighing in and for bringing some calm to the proceedings. Alexatpos, my view of music is far from academic; I beg to differ with your assessment. Much is said and done about keeping music in the realm of "can I FEEL it?" If that is as far as the listener's sensibilities go, that is a very simplistic and musically immature attitude and criterion for judging music; if judging must be done (Rok). Some music challenges the listener with sounds and "feelings" that he has never experienced before, and if the listener is willing to not be quick to dismiss it because he does not understand it, then the listener has an opportunity to grow; it's that simple. You are new to this thread and may not be aware of the fact that this "argument" has been a recurring theme on this thread. Question: I suggest there is good music of every decade and style, yes, including fusion. Now, Rok comes along, as he often does, and insists that it is simply noise, they are noise makers etc, that there is nothing good about the genre "fusion". Multiple attempts are made, with examples of worthy music, to show the other side of the coin. He insists it is noise (There was even a time when Rok insisted, probably still would, that Igor Stravinsky composed nothing but noise !?) So, tell me, just who is it that "continues to argue"? As I said before, if I am going to participate here, I need clarity. As far as I am concerned there is no room for personal agendas. If it is also a personal agenda to insist on pointing out the obvious, that jazz is an ever evolving art form and that there is ALWAYS (every era) good music, different perhaps, and that all art is like a living thing: it reflects the human spirit in whatever era that spirit exists, then I suppose I am guilty of having a personal agenda as well. Additionally, it is not the responsibility of the art and artist only to make sure that the listener can understand or appreciate it (to like it is an entirely different matter), the listener has an opportunity (some would say responsibility) to grow during the process of learning to understand it IF HE SO CHOOSES; an important "if". But if the listener doesn't want to, or finds it too difficult, that does not give him the credibility to call it noise. I hope that wasn't too "academic" for you. Regards. |
Frogman, your view to music is academic, the things you think, others (Rok) just might not FEEL. Its quite simple actually. I dont know why do you continue arguing. Regarding the subject of your discussion, personally I have not acquired the taste for music of that (70's) era, but that is a matter of my personal estethics on music, like it is with any other art form. It is completely understandable that we all have a different perspective on such things. My hit of the day, Bobby Jaspar, Herbie Mann, Tommy Flanagan and Joe Puma on 'Flute Souffle' album. http://youtu.be/otengS4cE3Q |
Acman, I enjoyed all of your posts, even the ones I didn't understand; like Cecil Taylor. Maybe I'm wrong, but Rok seemed to want to know what artists made the 70's so different, and that would include all artists associated with fusion and there was every kind of Fusion under the sun. Frogman, since Acman is doing such a good job "instinctively", I suggest he continue on the same way. I'm going to go through that decade the same way I went through it in life at that time; since I was bored with "classic jazz", I welcomed fusion, and I went all over the place, that's the way I'm going to proceed. Frogman, the direction you're going to take according to your last post sounds good to me. Enjoy the music. |
The point of my 'ridiculous' comparisons is to highlight and demonstrate the differences between Traditional Jazz Players, and the so-called 'Fusion' crowd. Playing the same music, so as to easier ID the differences, if any. I noticed you didn't comment of any of them. Which is your modus operandi, when your position is untendable. Then of course, comes the name calling. But you still didn't comment. This has nothing to do with my favorite music. It has to do with the insistent effort on this thread to equate all this "Fusion" nonsense, with Jazz. I was giving everyone an easy oppourtunity to hear for themselves. To make their own judgements. If you think the Parker and Pastorious performances were about equal, or Pastorious' was better, then say so. *****So, tell you what, you're right, we are all idiots.***** Well, I would not say ALL, are idiots.. Because Acman3 and the OP have not weighed in yet. BTW, the 'thrust' of this discussion is 'Fusion', and the people who play it. And how it is not real Jazz. And since the 70's was full of this stuff, it's right on topic. I also noticed you declined to give your definition of 'Fusion'. Cheers |
Rok, do you even know what it means to "copy note for note"? Obviously not. You have no idea what you are talking about because they clearly are not. I dont enjoy calling you out on on this stuff, but frankly you come across as a jerk with comments pretending to be substantive. I know, I know, but comes a time when things need to be said. What is the point of your ridiculous comparisons? Look, are you interested in learning about this stuff, this decade and its music and players or not? Did you listen to the McCoy/Brecker, or to the recordings in the article that you yourself posted? You are so predisposed to believing that nothing besides what you like is of value that you lose sight of what the thrust of the discussion is. Notice that no one else is, likewise, saying that their favorite music is the only one of value. It's simply too difficult to deal with your idiotic an sophomoric stances. So, tell you what, you're right, we are all idiots. There. If you change your mind and decide that you want to move beyond your very narrow sphere of understanding, let me know. As I pointed out before and to paraphrase Acman3, it's those that pretend to want to save it that end up destroying it. Cheers (I think) |
These guys try to copy Coltrane note for note. All in vain. John Coltrane -- Impressions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03juO5oS2gg Liebman, Brecker & Lovano -- Impressions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2trXF_ba0k Cheers |
Need input from Aficionados. John Coltrane -- Giant Steps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30FTr6G53VU Michael Brecker -- Giant Steps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhkb-_SEtxQ Cheers |
The Frogman: **** so what is it "in detail" that is superior about other eras, and so lacking in some of what has been posted so far . **** As does Acman3, I will let my clips do my talking. If you can't hear a real difference, then I will accept that there is something wrong with me. Charlie Parker -- Donna Lee https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02apSoxB7B4 Jaco Pastorius -- Donna Lee https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4rfe5xHCIg Your comments are welcomed. Cheers Cheers |
Time to grab the bull by the horns here. Acman3 did a heroic job of posting music of a wide range of styles. Personally, I think that's the best direction. My idea is to outline the music's evolution from flirtation with fusion to full-fledged fusion as well as other styles of the decade combined with explanations and descriptions (by all contributors). I would defer to O-10 as to what direction, exactly, should be followed. Until we hear from him that is the direction I plan on taking. Rok, why don't you enlighten us with specifics ("in detail") as to what it is about the music of this era that is so lacking. Not just "it's better or worse" "body of work", "noise" etc; but specifics. You are the only contributor so far that has shot down practically everything posted, so what is it "in detail" that is superior about other eras, and so lacking in some of what has been posted so far . Also, what is fusion TO YOU? Enlighten us, please. |
Who are you talking to Rok? Me or Acman3? And what question are you talking about? You may not like it but we are talking about more than fusion. If thats too much to handle , you know where you can go. Both Liebman and Brecker have been posted; more to come. Nothing unique about Woody Shaw' s style? Or 70s Henderson? And much of what Acman3 has posted? Get out of your shell. |
I usually give this Jazz thread a quick glance due to it's often stated preference for music from the past being the the be-all and end-all of the genre (which I don't agree with). Usually it's a conversation between the same 1/2 dz. guys that's occasionally interesting, which is perfectly fine, some discussion is better than no discussion, right? But than sometimes it'll veer into truly groan-worthy territories like the reality of Africa's influence on Jazz, or Nazis, or this latest discussion about Fusion. To try to use Michael Brecker and Dave Leibman as examples of whatever negative point yr trying to make about Pop or European Jazz truly displays a fundamental misunderstanding of modern Jazz, hardly worthy of being part of a thread that has the words 'Jazz Aficionado' in it's title. I mean, you wanna use Kenny G, or Nagee, or the Rippingtons as negative stereotypes, have at it! But Michael and David? As usual, it's hard to tell with R2id whether he's truly as ignorant as he's trying to portray himself or is he simply trollin' (again!). Anyhow, I'll let you guys get back to it, have fun!;) |
I thought we were talking about fusion. No sense posting Horace Silver, he was great in all decades. We all know this. Of course it is interesting that you go gaga over some guy named Bob Berg, while listening to Horace Silver. Makes a body wonder. Good Lord. Take away fusion, and there is nothing that unique about the 70's, except more of the greats had passed on. The ones playing in the 70's were as good as they were in the 60's. I have to admire the way you have deftly side-stepped the Fusion question. :) Now we are seeing Silver,Tyner and Henderson. lets get some Liebman and Brecker in here. Cheers |
****I never said the public knows best, I said, they decide.**** Global warming today; climate change tomorrow. Rok, you have a lot to learn about post- Blue Note era music. I am tempted to think that you just don't want to. If you do, you will simply have to check your arrogance at the door. I am willing to help "lead", but not with the constant destructive barbs and shallow commentary which is part of the truth in what Acman3 posted a little while back. To paraphrase: It is the one claiming to protect the music that will end up destroying it. A brief detour from the 70s (sorry): https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=lWIt4PtJwM0 |
Brecker: "Other notable jazz and rock collaborations included work with Steely Dan, Lou Reed, Donald Fagen, Dire Straits, Joni Mitchell, Eric Clapton, Billy Joel, John Lennon, Aerosmith, Dan Fogelberg, Frank Sinatra, Frank Zappa, Bruce Springsteen, Roger Daltrey, and Parliament-Funkadelic." Liebman: seems to have spent most of his time in Europe. Most of his reputation stems from Europe. I wonder why? I never said the public knows best, I said, they decide. If they knew what is best, Fusion would never have happened Cheers. |
1. Who said that? As I said to O-10, the discussion was supposed to be about the 70s. 2. Get your facts straight. Those guys never played in "pop" bands. 3. Body of work? What about it? Those guys are extremely well recorded and have significant discographies. And how convoluted, self-serving, and ironic: you decide exactly what jazz is, where it starts and ends, and then dismiss the contributions of players who don't fit YOUR mold as not being contributions at all. C'mon man, do you want to have a dialogue or not, because this kind of bullshit gets really old. 4. The «general public knows best» "thingy". Don't play dumb. 5. Not a chance in hell. And please no more smoke screens, nobody has mentioned NB's. Well, actually, interestingly, it was you who mentioned it when you said you could detect no structure in Black Market. Of course there is structure in BM; but, typically, you blame the music instead of your inability to hear it. Cheers and here's hoping for more substantive dialogue. |
The Frogman: 1. I thought you / we were going to define 'fusion' first. 2. Wiki gave their background. That's all. I just don't think of guys who spent most of their time with POP and Rock bands, as carrying on where Trane left off. There was no one even near Trane when he 'left off'. He was out there all alone. I don't think that's a good thing, just fact. 3. This solo, that solo. What about, "body of work"? What have these folks contributed to Jazz? 4. I am not sure what you are referring to with the 'popular' comment. 5. The playing on Wynton and Clapton is superior to ANY 'Fusion' submitted by You and Acman3. Music is more than N&Bs. Thats the least important part of it. Cheers |
Weather Report: It ain't saying much, and the look on Shorter's face says it all. "Man this is BS". I can't detect any structure to the music. Everyone just playing. Check out the audience. If this had been BeBop, they would not have been there. This all boils down to Money. I don't begrudge a musician making money. Just don't call it Jazz. I have "Heavy Weather" and several more on LP. Saw no need to get them on CD. Cheers |
All niceties aside, and with all due respect, Rok, when it comes to the "guys" that you refer to, you don't know what you are talking about. Those guys did not start off in jazz-rock. They started off as obsessive students of Coltrane and built on that legacy. They are serious jazz players, NYC legends and heros of the tenor saxophone world. Nobody said anything about being a seminal figure. And, please, don't be so darn predictable. I challenge one of your premises (the "popular" thingy) and you lash out with irrationality. If you would just chill for a moment you might learn something about the lineage of an instrument that can fairly be said is the only wind just instrument in "fusion" and practically defined the sound of an entire genre. We are supposed to be lookjng at the decade "in detail"; remember? Wiki? Are you f¿£®¢g kidding me? How about letting your ears tell you what a player is about. If you can't hear that Liebman is the direct descendant of Trane, or if you can't hear the brilliance of his solo with Elvin, what can I say. Re attire: c'mon man, of course it matters. But, again, if you have to resort to cheap shots like that and miss the forest for the trees, not to mention the substance of my comments, then these discussions really are pointless. I am willing to try and perhaps even "lead", but as I said previously, I think we need to dig little deeper; or endure yet more clips of Wynton and Clapton. Cheers. |
We can all be thankful Kenny G does not have a 100 mil laying around. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/arts/david-geffen-captures-naming-rights-to-avery-fisher-hall-with-donation.html?_r=0 |
