Jazz for aficionados
*****Moreover, anyone who thinks that to achieve the level of proficiency required to be an artist in ALL genres including jazz, doesn't require a tremendous amount of practice and study (formal or otherwise) is mistaken.******* This is a pet peeve of The Frogman, but, no one thinks this is the case. No one has ever said it was the case. Strawman?? Cheers |
Some thoughts on recent posts: It always comes back to those famous and simple words "There's only two kinds of music, good and bad". It is true that a good jazz musician has something special in the ability to improvise, and it is also USUALLY true that to be a great artist one has to "have it"; to be born with, at least, with the seed of a special gift. However, this reality applies not only to jazz musicians but to musicians in any genre. Yes, the great improviser has something unique that the classical musician doesn't (although, as Schubert points out, some Classical musicians improvise); but, the great Classical musician brings certain things to the table that the great Jazz player doesn't have. In that regard, other than wether it is a preferred genre for a particular listener or not, no genre is any more special than another. Moreover, anyone who thinks that to achieve the level of proficiency required to be an artist in ALL genres including jazz, doesn't require a tremendous amount of practice and study (formal or otherwise) is mistaken. Sure, there is the occasional rare exception of the player that appears to never have done so, but they undoubtedly did at some point. Re old/new: As Acmnan3 said, we go around in circles. Actually, more accurately, some just spin their wheels staying in the past without exploring more of what current jazz as to offer. Too bad. |
I wonder why no one ever mentions the music channels on cable TV (Time warner) , as a source of new music, or as a source to get introduced to old music. Not only do they play all genres, all day, but you get some excellent factoids on the music / composer. Heard some great CPE Bach today, then realized I have nothing by him on CD. Hamburg symphonies I think it was. Gotta start my search. Cheers |
O-10: A lot of things in the Music / entertainment world aren't what they used to be. But, lack of venue is tied to changes in the society at large. You can't find any Juke Joints in the Delta anymore. The last refuge seems to be New Orleans, and it's fading. I think the best analogy for the state of Jazz, is the state of Music in general. Simply, all the great creators / innovators are gone. The current music pales in comparison to the original. I cannot think of any genre that is better, save Classical. They have the advantage of playing the same repertoire. Hold on to your Blue Notes! Cheers |
*****I said all of this to say that as fans we don't seem to realize how special a good jazz musician is; they're born, not made. No amount of study or practice will enable a person to improvise at the level of a good jazz musician, and no matter how financially successful some other musicians are, a jazz musician knows within himself that he can do something very few people can do, and no way can they learn how to do it. Financial success does not equate to being a good jazz musician and being able to rapidly improvise good sounding music; "either you got it or you don't".***** It cannot be stated better than this. Case closed!! As usual, the OP has restored order. I was reading the Downbeat Issue listing all the Jazz studies programs across the country. I was amazed at the number! I always thought Jazz studies sort of started and ended with Indiana and North texas. Silly me. I wonder what happens to all those students. They sure aren't playing Jazz for a living. Cheers |
Thanks, Frogman. I'm going to trot over to the U of MN's gigantic bookstore and buy a theory text, though that will never tell me how Cater must be able to play the front and back of his string at the same time. I have done several compare and contrast sessions between Stitt and Parker. Great as Parker was, I prefer Stitt because his sliding in and out of dissonance reminds of how Bach and Brahms maintained the forever forward sound in their music I love so much. |
Schubert, I love Sonny Stitt; and you're right, he was one of the greatest improvisers with a wonderful ease in how the ideas flowed out of him. When he played there was never a sense that he would run out of ideas and seemed like an endless font. A great tenor player as well as alto; he was, nonetheless, an alto player at heart and it could be heard in his sound and concept when playing tenor. He started playing tenor as a way to combat the idea that he was trying to sound like Parker on alto. This is a piece of one of my favorite stories in all of jazz lore. When Stitt and Parker first met they realized that even though they had never heard each other play, they sounded a lot alike. I think the says some interesting things about the natural and inevitable evolution of an art form. Re Ron Carter: well, can one say about Miles" own choice for one of the greatest (perhaps greatest) rhythm sections ever. Carter, Herbie Hancock and Tony Williams. Fantastic player! |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRi6yhqmuxU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLCuhwHuEvU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6UDEkqCPE4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt4PyEFlf6Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdPGDBZdXuk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGNHZo2u8PI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZMwVj4cVyw |
We're going round and round like a dog chasing his tail in regard to new music VS old music, and new musicians VS old musicians. The reasons for this have absolutely nothing to do with the music or musicians; I'll explain. The primary reasons are economic; back then, there were many more "Juke Joints". While the term "juke joint" is normally used exclusively for "blues joints", I'm using it in reference to all small clubs that hire live entertainment. For example: I saw Phyllis Diller and Richard Pryor at such a small club before they became famous. Not together or on the same night, but at the same club. Albert King, Ike and Tina Turner, worked the same juke joints in St. Louis. I saw them many times before they became famous; the same for Grant Green. I saw more dynamite jazz groups than I can shake a stick at. My point for bringing this up is that musicians, and all other entertainers have to have a place to work while honing their craft. The number of "juke joints" have shrunk by at least a "gozillian"; now you get my drift. Since you can't resurrect the dead, when it comes to live music we don't have a choice; but that's no problem for me, because live music is usually better than recorded music, and new musicians have more formal training than yesterday's musicians from what I can gather. (If you kant git what you wont, like what you can git) That's what Rok told me, and I know he knows. Enjoy the music. |
Orpheus10, thinking about it, at one time in Berlin my wife and I lived next door to a full-time mom who was also a sub wind player for the Berlin Radio Symphony Orchestra(R.I.A.S.)and with whom wifey was good friend and baby-sitter. They had some big parties in the summer and a lot of those classical players could play the hell out of jazz and vice-versa.I still remember about a dozen of them laying down a fab "Cherokee" . |
Frogman, I've been ruminating on that b.s. solo concept you exponded on. Having never heard it before I'm been trying to come up with the best improvising artist I know of with my limited knowledge of jazz . I keep coming back to Sonny Stitt who, to my ears, makes these endless runs away from the center of the melody while nevertheless enhanceing same and doing wonders to harmonics at the same time. Another one is Ron Carter who can keep a steady baroque like beat while at the same time being very melodic , how this can be on one instrument is beyond me. If I am full of b.s, fell free to say so, I really want to understand a bit more. |
Learsfool, Cicero, the wisest of the pagans, said "he who does not know what transpired before him remains forever a child" . The thing that makes you hunger to know the history of something or somebody is love. They both have ego to spare, I'd wager Wynton loves jazz much more than his brother, who I would guess looks upon it, consciously or unconsciously, as a job. |
Frogman said "where I have a problem in this shortsightedness is in how it can influence the young minds of young students and artists and stifle their growth." I agree 100%, and this is one of the many reasons why Branford has always puzzled me - he is the polar opposite of his brother in this respect. Wynton is a great educator. It's almost like Branford is an evil twin.... |
Good for what ails ya!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0aIjyX7vwI No B, No O, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8LesTvNuaw Got me through Korea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8LesTvNuaw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raNGeq3_DtM May be tooo hot for the OP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOotsq4soug https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqSN-aBkunU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91Hp0wR1LY4 Cheers |
Does anyone else have the Sophie Milman CD "Make Someone Happy" ? To me, she's the best of all the current "divas" out there, not a great voice but beautiful lyrical phrasing , VERY flowing and for-real passion for music in her soft-voiced manner. The ensemble work by the Toronto musicians is SUPERB, at times the bassist, one Kieran Overs, sounds like a twin sister singing along. As joyful a recording as I have ever heard ! |
Even I , who knows next to nothing about jazz, gathered that Bradford was not all that from seeing his band a few times on whatever late-night show he was on, What really got to me was the deadpan expression on his face when f...ing Kenney G got to play the memorial piece on the show the night Dizzy passed. Arrogant people never get to the heart of the matter because you only learn yourself through other people. And only see God in others faces. |
Today's Listen: Geri Allen -- THE GATHERING Nothing irritating here. Very nice playing. Just does not seem to go anywhere. Comes very close to sound generation stuff. Everyone just playing their asses off, with seemingly no regard to what the others are playing. Hell, I was looking for the visuals. The tunes seem to end when everyone just stops. This track has more bite than most of them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX7lcPL5GxU Recommended for the modern crowd. If they call it Jazz, then it must be Jazz. Right? Cheers |
My best friends brother wanted to become a concert pianist, so his parents bought a baby grand piano. Hobart practiced diligently, and every time he practiced, the next door neighbor would come over and watch him in mesmerized awe. After Hobart finished, the neighbor would sit down and repeat him note for note; that was amazing beyond belief. Hobart went to Juilliard, got his degree in music and became a teacher. The next door neighbor became a jazz musician and was a star in St. Louis. The cat could jam, and I went to most of his performances over the years he played, until substance abuse cut him down. I never heard Hobart play, and my friend, his brother said he was into classical and taught music but didn't perform. Over the years Hobart lived an affluent life style; skiing, vacationing in Europe, bought a boat and retired in Florida after he left New York where he taught music. Although being a "jazz musician" never came up in Hobart's life, the fact that he never performed tells me he couldn't have been a jazz musician even if he wanted to. I said all of this to say that as fans we don't seem to realize how special a good jazz musician is; they're born, not made. No amount of study or practice will enable a person to improvise at the level of a good jazz musician, and no matter how financially successful some other musicians are, a jazz musician knows within himself that he can do something very few people can do, and no way can they learn how to do it. Financial success does not equate to being a good jazz musician and being able to rapidly improvise good sounding music; "either you got it or you don't". Enjoy the music. |
Re Branford and "My new closing argument": ****However, sometimes the crap they say is so breathtakingly stupid, something has to be said in rebuttal. Hence the tangents····**** - Rok The level of arrogance and stupidity shown by Branford in that article would be breathtaking were it not for the knowledge that this is the same Branford that has ridden the wave started by his brother Wynton. I think Branford is a better jazz player than Wynton, but not nearly good enough to make him, as Rok suggested, "darling of the thread". I don't particularly care for Wynton's jazz playing, but acknowledge that he is a force of nature with his amazing talent as an instrumentalist, educator and advocate for jazz. When the Marsalis brothers came on the scene, it was obvious who the star was going to be. Wynton was serious and would never pepper his language with obscenities the way Branford does: "There's only twelve fucking notes" One of the most idiotic statements that I have heard in a while and surprising even for him, a musician that in spite of a fair mount of talent is a generic player nonetheless. He even copied his brother in the "Look, I can play Classical music too" wave. He is, unlike his brother, a mediocre classical player. This is the same Branford who, during his stint with Sting's (!?!?!) band decided he wanted to sub in the pit of Sting's newly opened Broadway show and was too arrogant to do what is normal and required (sit through the show and watch/listen to the regular player play the part), and instead went in cold and, as musicians like to say, stepped on his dick and was told by the producers to not come back. Branford is a good player, but only good and he is an opportunist and does not have nearly the gravitas and importance in the music world that his brother has. So, bottom line, I think he is full of it with the comments he made in that article. I would have much to say as far as a more substantive rebuttal, but the first reader's comment accompanying the article says it about as well as I ever could: --------------------------------- %%%% Everything that I dislike about Branford and his extraordinarily generic sounding recordings can be summed up in his own quote: " I mean, man, there's 12 fucking notes. What's going to be new?" " I mean, man, there's only so many colors. What's going to be new?" - Vincent Van Gogh, on why he abandoned painting 'Starry Night' " I mean, man, there's only so many shapes. What's going to be new?" - Pablo Picasso, on choosing not to finish 'Guernica' " I mean, man, there's only so many words. What's going to be new?" - James Joyce, on scrapping 'Ulysses'. What's going to be new? Many things... and none of them created by someone who sees nothing but a closed system. Branford has been singing the "there are only 12 fucking notes" line for so long that he has convinced himself. If he would continue with his search, he would find out it is no longer true. Bur he already has the answers so why bother looking. But to each their own. But where I have a problem in this shortsightedness is in how it can influence the young minds of young students and artists and stifle their growth. Art isn't anymore the notes than it is the instrument, the tones, the colors, the paint brushes or anything else under the sun. Art is the voice of the soul of the individual artist. Though important, these other singular things are technical matters that only give you the tools in which to express your soul. If you can't express ithat level of depth, all of these things are not going to help you. You'll just learn the tools and learn them well. To lump it all together would be diminishing the work of our greatest artists. And if you are going to concentrate on the 12 notes, then try this experiment. Gather 50 people and place them in a room. Take a tape recorder and then walk by each person and ask them to repeat, "There are only 12 fucking notes" and record each person. Now take the recorder and place it at the front of the room and play the 50 voices back and ask everyone how many various unique voices they hear. How many? Of course you can say, "The differences are not notes but various tones and or colors of the voices." Ok, but doesn't that count? If it does, then why would you focus on 12 notes when creating? What about the other aspects? It's simple, right? But when it comes to art you have to take it another step futher. At the foundation of each person is something that is incredibly unique that makes them who they are. However, not everyone is in touch with that something. In fact, very few. Artists are able to rediscover who they are and create from that place but not many can. Now you can think that's a bunch of hogwash and it's only one way of explaining it and I certainly will not say it's the best way. %%%% |
Well, its certainly nice to know that a musician of your stature agrees with me Learsfool. In the violin sonata realm , the best I ever heard was Joseph Suk , son of the composer and great-grandson of Dvorak who played often in Berlin. BTW, the Minnesota is sold out for next couple years, cost me $200 for a scalped ticket.Cheap for what I heard. |
Schubert, I agree with you that Shaham is one of the best I have ever heard live as well. I have played with most of the really famous ones of the past twenty years now. Another favorite of mine, though very different, is Perlman. He did one of the best solo recitals I have ever heard on any instrument when I was in college, and my orchestra got to accompany him about 15 years ago for our annual gala fundraiser. Very nice guy, too. |
Old and New Jazz. As Branford said, there are only so many notes. After awhile it will repeat itself to some degree. Nothing new under the sun type thingy. Several years ago I was in San Antonio at a Best Buy store. They had a fantastic CD section, and everytime I was in town I went there. Once I bought a Multi-Disc box set by Ellington. At the checkout counter, the girl scanned it and said, "wow, that's expensive". I said, "yes it is". She looked at the CD for a moment and said, "He really must have been famous". I smiled and said, "yes he was". Every musical genre has a beginning, reaches an apex which is followed by a slow decline. The genres carry on, but a lot of people get off the train when the music stops speaking to them. They are replaced by the young, who think the current stuff is just awesome. Just as we did in the 50s /60s. Just imagine what the swing fans thought of Trane. There are no more people like Muddy Waters, John Lee Hooker, Elvis, The Stones, Mozart, Bach, Goodman, Ellington, Mingus, Mahalia Jackson etc...... you get the drift. I just hope you enjoyed the ride when your prime coincided with the music's prime. That's all there is. Of course there is always a little overlap. We can all be thankful for the recorded media we have. And if THEY don't know who The Duke Is, then I don't know who Paterson is! So there! Cheers |
Frog, to hear Shaham hold a long line that went 3-4, 4-4, 2-4 was something to hear.I've read his Stad is the best extant, I believe it. I would put him up with the 2 best IMO other fiddlers I've heard in person. Milstein and Oistrakh. sort of a happy medium between the two ! FWIW, intermission gossip had it the Minnesota agent beat the NY and Chicago to the bunch so I'm sure they will play in Cuba as well! Speaking of the NY, I heard them in some Berlioz on NPR under Andrew Davis, who seems able to get the best from any band, and they sounded really good. esp. brass. |
Just to be clear, the low t comment was meant as a joke. I have always liked Branford Marsalis's music. I even managed to see his Quartet play once. He played some free music during the show, based on a chord, and they would improvise and let it take them where it wanted to go. He said they did this every night of the tour for their interest. The jazz that night was a very high level, very exciting for me, but lost my brother after about 10 minutes. |
In case they weren't obvious, a couple of typos; sorry: teumpet: trumpet "......Anout: About" BTW, Rok, if you are interested in the WSS/Bernstein recording that Learsfool mentions, for a fascinating peek into the process of its making check this out; priceless stuff: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rjxWKL6jhC4 |
From "THE GREAT BULLSHIT DEBATE" :-) ****Does all / most of FREE, and AVANT-GARDE Jazz, fall under the category of BULLSHIT?**** - Rok Frankly, and no disrespect meant, I think the answer is obvious: OF COURSE NOT. But, as usual, we each have to arrive at our own conclusions. And, as someone famous once said, if you have to ask..... A milestone in the avant-gard jazz movement and, imo, one of the greatest jazz records ever (Tony Williams was 18 yrs old!!!): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cklbhkm1HrE |
O-10, great to see you back on the thread. As "second in command" :-) I would like to share a couple general observations about the direction of the thread which relate to some of your recent comments: I find it interesting how we (I certainly include myself) sometimes tend to read into comments what we want or expect to see in the words of others; this, based on our own biases and expectations. Human nature. Personally, in spite of my own strong opinions, I try to not get too frazzled by commentary that may seem off the mark or even ridiculous to me. I try, with various amounts of success, to use it as an opportunity to challenge, have deeper dialogue and possibly learn something in the process. Sometimes it works; sometimes not. This thread has existed for some time now and without digging too deeply into the specifics of its history, I think it is fair to say that one of the "controversies" has been the issue of the state of jazz and wether there is relevant new jazz being played/recorded today; or, wether good jazz is simply and only a thing of the past. To me there is no question that that answer is an unequivocal YES, jazz is alive and well. It has evolved as it always will and to try to keep it in the past is not only pointless, but goes counter to the spirit of the music. It merits the ungoing support of the listener. Case in point: I recently posted a clip by an impressive young piano player. Some liked it some didn't; as expected. No one suggested that this young piano player was the end-all, nor that everyone should run out and buy his recordings instead of those of Peterson, Tatum or whoever. Simply, that here we have yet another example of a promising young player who may and will probably grow into something truly special. Jazz is still here and here to stay. Importanlty, I am glad to see a "softening" of the hard-line stance which was often expressed by the die-hards early in the history of the thread that there is nothing new of value happening today. For me, the constant, pointless, and unwarranted negativity about the state of jazz is tiresome, counterproductive and, ironically, damaging to the health of the music. The greats of this music and their greatness don't need to be protected from the impact of new music that may not comform to our individual idea of the perfect jazz; especially when the complaining is not accompanied by a solid suggestion of a "solution". Imo, it's far more productive to support the kind of environment where creativity is not stifled and simply let the cream rise to the top. |
