The Frogman:
Ted Nash:
I am sure he is a fine technically competent musician. But this music just did not do it for me. Watching it is interesting, but to listen on CD, I don't see that.
He talks too much. The band members seemed uninterested when they were not playing. What happened to listening to each other. Music not fluid at all. just unconnected segments.
Gary Smulyan:
Liked his stuff. I had to go to youtube. Might not be the one you sent. But I like his style. "Bella Napoli" was very interesting. I could listen to that on CD/LP.
Rich Perry / Tim Hagans:
Again, great players, just not my cup of tea.
Fred Hersch:
Non-Jazz. Too many reviews from "The New Yorker" and "Vanity Fair" and sources like that. All saying in effect, he marches to a different drummer. Which is true. But not always a compliment.
I will concede that you are a better judge of talent than I am. So if you disagree, I agree you are correct. I just stated my opinion.
Jazz, the very word conjures up images of Smoke filled night clubs, small clubs, women, drinking, noise, laughter, dancing, working girls, guys playing for the pleasure of it, blowing over the din, not a sheet of music in sight.
These guys are light years from that. Maybe they are beyond it. Maybe better. Maybe too deep for me. Maybe it's what people like these days. Maybe they are technically perfect.
Maybe thats's why I have 3000 CDs and 6 Cd players. I can live in the past forever. Because as the man said, "Art Is not linear"!
My book just covered "Abstract Music". I have a question. Learsfool made a statement that fits right into what the book says. It's kind of long, will take some time to condense it. Send it later.
Cheers |
The Frogman:
Donny McCaslin:
Both clips were good. The C-Jam Blues clip had a lot of energy and enthusiasm. The tune they chose to play didn't hurt matters at all. He did play longer than he should have. Sometimes, players continue to solo, after the solo is over. Youthful exuberance??
Casting for Gravity:
This guy does play Jazz. Would have been better without the electronic stuff. But it was Jazz. It would be silly to compare these young guys with the all time greats, I just expect them to play Jazz. This young man does. They will find their groove, and get even better with time and experience. I just hope he has the patience to stick to it. And, ditch the electronics.
Cheers |
Learsfool:
****Rok, I must agree 100% with Frogman - your comments in your latest post are way off base. Laughable, even. Are you trying to troll us? Seriously?!*****
I assume you are talking about the 'popularity' remarks. I don't get the humor. Do you disagree?
Name me one artist that is considered great, but not popular with his audience, intended or otherwise.
I have no idea what a 'Troll' is. Must be an 'Audiophile'
thingy.
Cheers |
Here's one of the most interesting and forward-looking young saxophone players around and making some very interesting music; and an amazing instrumentalist. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NKgvNKHCBdMAnd here he is, along with Joshua Redman, as soloist "ringers" in a band comprised of HIGH SCHOOL (!) players. First of all, check out the expressions on the faces of the kids (!) in the saxophone section as they listen to McCaslin and Redman solo; check out that kid on bass playing his ass off. If that doesn't bode well for the future of jazz, I don't know what does. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvy4xbWJmp8McCaslin's playing (even if a little too long) is an absolutely amazing display of ideas and virtuosity. Redman also plays very well and more melodically, and seems to have a look of worry as McCaslin plays, as if saying: "I have to follow THAT?" But, it's the kids that really impress. Yes, contrary to popular cliche, they can learn a lot in school. Don't worry folks, jazz is alive and well. |
Enough already! It seems that Acman3 is the only person still on the music, as opposed to factors surrounding the music that none of us know for sure. Let's get back on the track that will lead to new discoveries of jazz. But before we leave, I think we should all agree to broaden the definition, or not. In order to appease Rok, I've stayed within the narrow definition of the word, while my definition is quite broad. What ever the mutual definition is, is fine with me.
Enjoy the music.
|
Rok, I must agree 100% with Frogman - your comments in your latest post are way off base. Laughable, even. Are you trying to troll us? Seriously?! |
Acman3, thanks for the Joe Sullivan links. Nice! New to me. Very harmonically interesting writing; he has a unique voice harmonically. I particularly liked Lofsky's guitar playing. Here's a band composed of some of the best young NY jazz cats. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ_BjtbP_Lk |
We can debate the issue of the meaning of popularity ad nauseum, and I could point out that you could not be more mistaken re the motivation of true artists being popularity since to most true artists popularity, even when sought and achieved, is secondary to the simple need to perform their craft; no matter what. However, as concerns this discussion the point that you, perhaps conveniently, continue to ignore is that jazz WAS the popular music at one time and is no longer for many reasons already discussed, that in no way does that mean that great jazz is no longer being played; quite the contrary.
Your feelings about popularity as concerns the artist really don't come as a surprise. For some insight into your mindset about this, I would bring up, again, the subject of the great Phil Woods. When first discussed, and after my accolades of his playing you were, at best, unimpressed with his playing and your most positive comment about him was "He's fat". Months later, as you read more and more about him and became more and more aware of the countless recordings he was on and how he was held in the very highest esteem by top players, all of a sudden he seemed to move closer to the top of your list (so to speak). I would suggest that his great stature was there to be heard and did not need the support of anything else aside from your ears.
Let us know what you think of the players I recommended. |
**** As I said before your points go to the issue of popularity; what does that prove?*****
To most artist, 'popularity' is EVERTHING! It's priceless. It means success. Financial security. It also 'proves' the artist is connecting with the intended audience.
Popularity is the whole point of being an Artist.
People just have to accept the fact, that the unwashed masses, decide the fate and fortune, of all Artists. :)
Cheers |
****Go out to hollywood to take a group photo of all the great western / cowboy stars. You may find a couple. They are all gone. Because Westerns are all gone.**** Huh?! Strange analogy, but re your post in general, see my previous post; I said it all before. Just what is it you think, that when I say that there is a lot of good jazz still being played, that I am making this up? As I said before your points go to the issue of popularity; what does that prove? **** So it is possible I am not up to speed on the current crop of Jazz players.**** You think? More like the understatement of the year (thread). I suppose I could turn the tables on you and ask YOU to name a few to prove my point, but I will recommend a few. Some of my favorite young jazz players: http://tednash.com"The Mancini Project" is a favorite, but any of his recordings are worth hearing; as are any of the recordings by the following. http://richperrymusic.comhttp://www.garysmulyan.com/m/http://home.earthlink.net/~smoulden/scott/scott.html#lp1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Haganshttp://fredhersch.com/index.phpLots more, but this should get you started. Cheers. |
|
|
|
The Frogman:
I am still 'discovering' Jazz music by people that died in the 70's. So it is possible I am not up to speed on the current crop of Jazz players.
Could you recommend a couple of albums for me to try?
Cheers |
Indicators:
Could Nica write her book today?
Could we have JATP today?
Who, currently travels the globe for the State Dept, as Jazz / goodwill Ambassador?
The state of Blue Note.
The state of DownBeat.
Proof of anything? Sure it is.
Go out to hollywood to take a group photo of all the great western / cowboy stars. You may find a couple. They are all gone. Because Westerns are all gone.
Cheers |
You guys are missing the point, and what Rok hits on (and the Harlem photo) goes back to the issue of popularity. Jazz will never be as popular as it once was, and there will never be as many movers and shakers living at any one point in time; that is not being disputed. The problem is when blanket statements like these are made:
"There were more jazz musicians in the 60's"
"It was a jazz community then but not now"
"It's about the money now"
"Players today don't care as much about producing great art"
C'mon now, those things are simply not true, and when you guys are spending a good deal of time and on a regular basis around these players and experiencing these things first hand, then you can make those proclamations with authority; until then..... Look, sharing of ideas is a great thing, but it is important to have a more comprehensive scope. The reason that I feel strongly about this is two-fold: you guys love jazz and I believe you are way too quick to dismiss much contemporary jazz. Not necessarily to like it, but to acknowledge its integrity; there's a lot of new jazz out there worth listening to. But, more importantly, is the irony of this outlook. That outlook does not help, but hinders, the promotion of jazz itself and I hope we can all agree, at least, that the future of jazz is worth promoting. |
*****That is exactly what is going on today. On what do you base the notion that it is not? *****
What do you think, a present day photo, similiar to the "Great Day In Harlem" photo, would look like today.
Cheers |
Rok, you really hit upon something. It's going to take time for a good response, but it's coming.
Enjoy the music.
|
We can't have it both ways! We can't acknowledge that the arts reflect the times and then judge the quality of the art according to what it is reflecting, instead of, simply, how well it reflects it or not; wether we like what it is reflecting or not. These are two entirely different things. There will always be good jazz, just like there will always be good art in any genre. ****The early days of many genres were dominated and substained and nutured by players that formed a community, or culture. They knew each other and played together and many socialized together. They created a 'world' or 'society' in which this great music was produced. This was a world or society within the larger society.**** That is exactly what is going on today. On what do you base the notion that it is not? Young jazz musicians are part of "collectives" on a level never seen before and very much form a community with very clear and serious creative goals. To think otherwise is to shortchange, not only these young players, but jazz itself which has always stood for pushing forward and evolving. These guys (and ladies) are not "into it for money and fame", and to say that making great art is less important to this younger generation of creative musicians is grossly inaccurate and unfair. That we may each like jazz in a certain style more than another style is an entirely different matter. We keep coming back to this debate which ultimately proves to be pointless and very limiting. Yes, it is true that there is no substitute for actual real-world playing experience, but the learning done in school is producing a great number of young players with the kind of well-rounded understanding of the basics and a technical skill that never seen before. And, they don't want to play like the players before them, they want to find new voices. We might do well to listen to more of these players, they deserve our support. Just one example; in support of a local group. http://brooklynjazz.org/index.php |
After some thought about what's wrong with Jazz today, I have concluded that the problem is:
The early days of many genres were dominated and substained and nutured by players that formed a community, or culture. They knew each other and played together and many socialized together. They created a 'world' or 'society' in which this great music was produced. This was a world or society within the larger society.
Jazz in New Orleans
Jazz in New York
Kansas City
Even LA (cool)
Country Music centered around Nashville and the Grand ole Opry. Again a commuinty, almost family.
Blues, most of the players from the Mississippi delta knew each other. Came from similiar backgrounds and experiences. Look at a map of MS with the birtplaces of all the blues greats. They were all born and raised in very close proximity. Most people today don't even understand the meaning of a lot of the words in blues songs.
Detroit and the stable of artists at Motown. Urban and Close knit. They sang to what is best about being young.
I will not say money was not important, it always is. It just seemed like making great art was more important back then.
Sadly, all these nurseries of creativity have all but dried up. As the creative players begin to die off, there were no replacements of equal talent. Mainly because the conditions that created and nourished the talent changed or disappeared.
Today, it's foremost about money and fame. All individual. Hit and miss. Hope I get lucky. And the idea that "I can be anything I want to be", lack of talent notwithstanding.
And this stuff can't be learned or taught in school.
Classical music is foreign born and therefore not related to this. We will have to ask the Germans why there are no more Beethovens. :)
Today's Gramophone has a great article on David Zinman. He is retiring from the job at Zurich. Great insight into the job of conducting and the relationship with the players. Talked about the importance of the first-desk players.
Cheers |
Learsfool:
http://www.greatbigcanvas.com/category/abstract-art/?gclid=CM6Dpuj4q74CFU8Q7AodqmcACw&utm_expid=771419-1.-OChkEM_T6G01IS00kMx2g.0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.aol.com%2Faol%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dabstract%2520art%26s_it%3Dkeyword_rollover%26ie%3DUTF-8%26VR%3D3430
Are you saying I have to understand this in order to like Oscar Peterson, Ellington etc...?
Cheers |
|
Yes, and I particularly appreciated, in a brilliant stroke of orchestration genius, the addition (at 3:45) of the distinctive and subtle tone of the bassoon :-)
I wonder how that guy sounds on the opening of "Rite Of Spring"? |
Acman3, that was about as abstract as you can get.
Enjoy the music.
|
Frogman, my previous post was in regard to vocal VS none vocal, and the quality of jazz in the 50's and 60's, as opposed to now; nothing about who is, or is not studying jazz. Nor do I pine for that sound by current musicians; that would be imitation, and not original; which is something I detest.
I'm sure there are vibrant jazz scenes in other parts of the world, because my purchases of "current" jazz are from: Korea, Poland, and India; while my latest purchases of jazz from here consist of the 50's and 60's jazz.
This is one time I definitely agree with Rok.
Enjoy the music.
|
Hello everyone - thanks for the reactions to that article. I think Orpheus took most of it in the same way I did. For me, the author's main point actually isn't really about jazz per se, but the fact that Americans don't get instrumental music in general, as opposed to other cultures.
I pretty much agree with Frogman's comments as well - I definitely cringed at the Coltrane/Kenny G comparison as well. I also think that Wynton quote is dead on, and also in a way related to the lack of understanding of instrumental music in our culture. I also like and agree with what Frogman says about how popular music changes with the culture, etc. Jazz has certainly survived that.
Orpheus, Frogman is definitely correct about jazz studies being alive and well in schools, and also that there are more jazz clubs around in major cities than ever, all over the country. Recording sales are not the only, nor even the main way to judge whether an art form is alive or not.
Rok, some of your comments are very puzzling to me. Music without words IS abstract art, period; even if there is a "program" or "story" involved, it too can only be abstract. So yes, appreciating abstract art is absolutely necessary for understanding any type of music without words. Such music does indeed demand much more of the listener, even if the listener may not be meeting the demand.
As for your book, yes, all Western music does have a common origin, in the sense that it uses the same language. It isn't just a cliche to say that music is a universal language. This goes back to the discussion of "modes" that Frogman gave. The vast majority of Western music is directly based on just two of those modes, the ones we now call the major scale and the minor scale (Ionian and Aeolian, the Greeks called them, respectively). For many forms of popular music, relentlessly and monotonously so. |
|
My book tells me, if I have understood it correctly, that all western music has a common orgin.
Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Mingus, Ellington, Monk, Elvis, The Beatles, Little Richard etc... all water from the same well??
Cheers |
The Article:
I should have stopped reading after this silly paragraph.
*****To be able to enjoy instrumental music, you must be able to appreciate abstract art, and that requires a certain amount of effort. Just mindlessly drinking wine, for instance, would not make you a wine connoisseur. Mindlessly looking at colors (which we all do every day) would not make you a color expert either. Great art demands much more from the audience than the popular art does.******
One of the things that makes Great Art, GREAT, is the fact, that a large percentage of humanity, considers it great. Great Art is accessible Art. Art is never great, just because, the artist thinks it should be. And a few 'elites' from NYC does not do the trick either. No one has to 'push' or make arguments in favor of the art of the Masters. It speaks for itself.
A person should not have to 'figure out' what the artist is saying or protraying. There are a few exceptions, the one that comes to mind, is Picasso's masterpiece, "Guernica". It's a horrible looking painting, because it represents something horrible. A person without the historical knowledge, might not 'get it'.
The Japanese stuff was silly. None of his 'facts' are supported by academic research. And they do not withstand logical scrutiny.
The Frogman's post was excellent, but this article did not demand or deserve the time and effort of such a detailed rebuke.
Cheers |
Today's Listen:
Bud Powell -- THE AMAZING BUD POWELL VOLs ONE & TWO
Yes Indeed!!
Cheers |
Learsfool, interesting and thought-provoking piece; but, with some real problems.
First of all, I don't subscribe to the, unfortunately typical, negative doom-and-gloom view of the health of Jazz and what many feel its place in popular culture is or should be. But, first, some "technical" problems with the article:
The author reveals lack of depth in his perspective right off the bat by putting Kenny G alongside Coltrane as examples of terrible and great Jazz, without understanding (or, at least, acknowledging) that Kenny G is not a Jazz artist at all. That many today may consider him a Jazz musician is both irrelevant to the important issue here and also indicative of the futility of approaching the issue that he attempts to tackle from this perspective. He then goes on to use the example of Sinatra's "My Way". Huh?! Jazz?! His points about Americans' attraction to vocal music and lyrics are well taken. However, more than anything, they point to a key issue in the "problem"; if one insists on calling it a problem. I don't, necessarily. To me, as with many trends in the arts, it is an inevitability.
The "problem" goes back to the issue that Rok brought up (with a little prodding :-) ) recently: that art, inevitably, reflects the times; and, also, to our mistaken insistence on relating Jazz to popular culture. Yes, Jazz was the pop music at one point in time. So what? That was then, and today is a completely different time. It is important to point out that every popular music has its time and then fades into relative obscurity. Ragtime did, swing did, big-band did, bebop did, folk did, etc. It is also important for us to individually acknowledge that, at least in part, our personal affinity for Jazz from certain periods of time is a reflection of our personal affinity for all that the particular period of time stands for in our lives and should not necessarily be the ultimate test of that music's quality or value in the scheme of things. None of this is to say that we cannot regret how the music has changed, and how that change relates to our personal aesthetic. However, to indulge in that kind of outlook is to dismiss the positives in where things really stand.
I have to respectfully disagree with our esteemed OP by pointing out that young musicians are studying Jazz in record numbers. There are vibrant Jazz scenes all over the world; created by these young players who are breaking musical boundaries and making some great music. Sure, I, like many of us, pine for the '50's or '60's Blue Note sound; but, to think that there isn't a lot of great Jazz being made today is not only short-sighted, but does a disservice to the art form. The problem is that we want Jazz to be popular the way that it once was; it ain't gonna happen! That Jazz continues to transform itself (wether any one of us likes it or not) and to thrive (even if not "popular" to the masses) is a testament to its power and timelessnes (unlike many other popular genres). So, what is it that the author of the article is really concerned about? Is he concerned about about American culture as a whole, and it's diminished interest in Jazz? Or, is he concerned about the health and viability of the art?
I think that Jazz is alive and well, and the doomsayers in positions of power (critics, press) are, in some ways, doing it a disservice with their proclamations of its demise. BTW, think about how many Jazz mags exist today (in print and on-line) compared to the past. If this, along with the ever-increasing number of young Jazz players, is not an indication of the health of the music, I don't know what is. American culture, as a whole is a different matter.
It may be a different matter; but, as with the health of Jazz, I am more optimistic than not. Of course, we can point to the easy and obvious stuff: our obsession with materialism, the impact of social-media and gadgetry and their impact on the development (or demise) of social skills, the negative effects of the incredible wealth that this country offers even the "poor" which leads to sense of entitlement and distortion of healthy values. All of this relates in many ways to what I think the author is trying to say. However, one of the things that is usually overlooked when comparing ours to other cultures and those other cultures' apparently deeper appreciation for art is the simple and obvious fact that our culture is in its infancy in comparison to most of the cultures usually cited; cultures which have a many-centuries old tradition in the arts.
American culture is still taking shape and establishing roots, and Jazz is one of its main roots. One of the most provocative comments I have ever read on the subject was by one of our favorite topics of discussion: Wynton Marsalis. Wynton points out that Jazz is about us as a culture and that listening to Jazz is like looking at ourselves in a mirror. I would propose that all of the things mentioned previously which are indications and the causes of young Americans' inability and reluctance to be introspective are a reason why they are reluctant to "look in the mirror". However, I think this will change as our culture matures. On a personal level, being the father of a young (23) visual artist with a deep appreciation for all music, and getting to know his circle of friends, has reinforced what I believe are reasons for being optimistic. |
Learsfool, that was a very thought provoking article. Most people prefer words with their music, we're the ones who are different; however, in the case of jazz, musicians feed off of other musicians, there were many more jazz musicians in the 50's and 60's than now. I'll give you an example; I just picked out two of my favorite albums: Benny Green, "Soul Stirring", consisting of highly prominent sidemen who are stars in their own right: Gene Ammons, Sonny Clark, and Alvin Jones were jazz stars who also led groups. Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers consisted of so many stars down through the years to even include Wynton Marsalis, that the jazz had to be top quality. The album "Moanin", consisted of Lee Morgan, trumpet; Benny Golson, tenor sax; Bobby Timmons, piano; and of course Art Blakey on drums. When just two LP's are loaded with so many greats, the music couldn't go wrong. Back then, people who were into popular vocal music, had a few jazz LP's because they liked the music. Although these tunes came into my collection without vocals, here are some with vocals on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA81pRYtEXcHere's the same tune by Andre Previn; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZKzTMr1M5ENow for Horace Silver, "Senor Blues"; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRdlvzIEz-gThis is a vocal version; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpPXgjsjgAwWhile I enjoy both versions of my favorite jazz tunes, the bottom line is the original as it was first composed. Enjoy the music. |
|
.
Lears...very interesting piece. Thank you for sharing. I'm a jazz lover, but I was guilty as hell regarding the Rothko-Monet example...excellent analogy.
Amazingly, I don't listen to very much vocal music because it gets in the way of, or distracts from the instrumental content. Easily 95% of my jazz collection is instrumental.
The next time I see a piece of abstract art, I won't be so dismissive of it. I will be more open and try to look a little deeper. However, It's going to take me another two or three decades to try to figure out Cecil Taylor and Jackson Pollock.
. |
Hi guys - I would like your opinions on this, especially Frogman's. I don't agree with everything in it, but it is definitely food for thought.
http://dyske.com/paper/778 |
Never heard the chorus / soloists like this on any LP / CD I have ever heard. Quite a contrast in style between Barenboim, and the French conductor on the Handel pieces.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJQ32q2k8Uo
Recommend everyone check out all The 'Proms' youtubes.
Cheers |
One of my favorites. Love the period instruments / instrumentation. Nice history lesson. Seems as if every country is proud of their history, except us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q27aV-IiQWo
Cheers |
I Just Love Stuff Like This. He is the greatest and richest, showman / entrepreneur in classical music, ever!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GD-5mRyaJw
Learsfool: I considered the Copland book, but some of the reviewers, after reading it, said it should have been titled "What to Listen For In MY Music" by Aaron Copland. :)
I may get around to it yet. I have a long, long way to go.
Cheers |
Hey Rok! Maybe you'll even get around to my suggestion - Aaron Copland's "What to Listen For in Music." :) Glad you are branching out! |
O-10:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AheC9ul5w1A
Also check out the Soweto Gospel Choir. Too much 'performing' in their stuff, but ok to listen to.
Cheers |
Sorry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9BNoNFKCBI
Cheers |
Quincy at his best. Great idea. Wonderful music and performances. I wonder what happened to the money?
My guess? Ultimately, and sadly, it ended up in the pockets of French Hookers.
Cheers |
You are welcome.
Funny video, btw. |
|
The Frogman:
To my puny mind, those 'Modal' guys were just playing the 'wrong' notes on purpose. Of course I had no idea what modal Jazz was, or that it even existed.
After reading your post, I ended up deep in google land. Had to hear Maiden Voyage. Found a lot of good sites for music for beginners. This was a link on one of those sites. Meant to prove a point and be funny. It is both.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I
Your post was excellent, as always. As I read my book, I will also study scales, keyes, and chords. I suspect that a little more of this and I will never listen to music quite the same way.
Thanks for the insight.
Cheers |
Re Gregorian Chant (plainchant): monophonic. One single moving melodic line; no harmony. It may come as a surprise to learn that there is an important similarity to jazz. No kidding! It has been asked a few times on this thread what exactly "modal" jazz is. Like modal jazz, plainchant is composed within the framework of a "mode"; modes in music as devised by the ancient Greeks. The simplest way to explain it is this: Think of the most familiar, and simplest to visualize on a piano keyboard, scale. The C Major scale; eight successive white keys beginning on a C and ending on another C one octave higher (CDEFGABC; every scale is made up of eight notes). The first and last notes of the scale have a natural aural "pull"; the movement of a melody using that scale "wants" to end (resolve) on that note. Sing "Happy Birthday", a very simple tune in a Major key: the melody starts on the fifth note (G) of a C Major scale and ends on a C. Now, sing it again, but this time, instead of ending on the last "you", end it on "to". "...... Happy Birthday, dear Ro-ok, Happy Birthday, to....." Notice how strongly your ear wants to go to "you"; to resolve. That is part of the "flavor" of a Major tonality. Visualize the white keys on the piano keyboard again: CDEFGABC(CDEFGABCDEFGABCDEFGABCDEFGABC etc.) Now, instead of starting the scale on the "C", start it on the "D" and go up the keyboard to the "D" one octave higher: DEFGABCD That is the first of the seven "modes"; Dorian mode. It is a mode very commonly used in Jazz with its own distinct "flavor"; different from Major and every other mode. It has its unique "flavor" due to the mathematical relationships of the notes within that particular scale and the subsequently weaker or stronger aural "pulls" to each note of that scale as compared to Major and the other modes. Jazz tune in Dorian mode: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DEC8nqT6Rrk |
you know you like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FSXomH4tCo
cheers
|
Today's Listen:
Andy Bey -- ANDY BEY AND THE BEY SISTERS
Good tune selection. Great Harmony. Laid back slow tempos. I would have liked more like 'sister sadie', which was my favorite.
Beethoven -- DIABELLI VARIATIONS
Andreas Staier on fortepiano
This CD has the distinction of having more tracks than any other single CD I have ever seen. 46!!
ain't got it git it.
Cheers |
****Rok, it would take a volume of books to answer the questions you ask in regard to music and the generations.***
Not for much longer. :) Today I learned about PLAINCHANT, which is the basis for all Western Composed music.
Did you know, that, Plainchant represents the single greatest body of music created by Western Culture? :)
It is often referred to as 'Gregorian Chant'. I actually have a CD of Gregorian Chant. The last time I listened to it, it put me to sleep.
But, according to this book that was sort of the purpose of it. To get you in a state of mind, conducive to meditation.
Seems as if we can all be grateful to the Christian Church for holding the fort during the dark ages.
BBC magazine ran a piece about a year ago. 'The most influential people in classical music.' The top three were Pythagoras, Jesus Christ, Gregory the Great.
I am now begining to see why.
Cheers |
Rok, it would take a volume of books to answer the questions you ask in regard to music and the generations. Everything, including economics and social structure has to be taken into account; music is not created in a vacuum. When I attempt to answer your questions, after going around like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel, and finding myself in a tunnel that leads to a tunnel of it's own, I quit; that's when I throw the four sheets of paper in the can.
Frogman, it feels good to be back. On "Take 6", that's really different; religious lyrics in a jazzy groove, I like that. When I requested new groups of "Afro Blue's" caliber, I didn't realize how difficult that is, now I'm changing it to any time frame.
Rok, Anne Akiko Meyers is new to me, now I'm going to have to get everything she's put out; plus DVD's to gaze upon her foxy face, she's a treat for the eyes as well as the ears.
Enjoy the music.
|
You're just a sucker for a pretty face :-)
Agree about Take 6. Their first album was killer and nothing after was as good; a shame given their amazing talent. |
The best music videos ever??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrGw_cOgwa8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSb5Sd_FCJ4
Cheers |
Good call on Take 6. I have that CD and never thought of it earlier when I sent my recommendations.
They didn't live up to their potential. IMO. But 'MARY' is great. I expected them to be a better version of BOYZ II MEN.
Cheers |
Received and listened to today:
Anne Akiko Meyers -- THE FOUR SEASONS
I needed another Seasons like I need a hole in the head. BUT, she is a FOX, and lives in Austin. What's a Gentleman to do? Also her, AIR, The Bach Album, CD is absolutely awesome. And this one is great also. With the English Chamber Orch.
Nat King Cole Trio -- HIT THAT JIVE JACK
Good music ruined by tape hiss.
Cheers |
