Jazz for aficionados
No ruckus, Acman3; just healthy debate. Besides, what's wrong with a good healthy ruckus? :-) Otherwise we would be stuck talking about nothing but Bird, Monk and Wynton and those between. Keep it coming! http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=27QVenKmDBI&feature=plpp&list=PL64F164D56D514451 |
I don't think we will be able to reconcile our differences in this matter, people have been arguing over it for 50 years. I like Frogman have 2 minds on free jazz, but if I had spent my life learning music, and practicing to sound RIGHT on my instrument, I might not be very tolerant of people like Bowie. I ran across the first Lester Bowie video and laughed so hard I wanted to share with someone. I was not intending to start a rucuss, but all the comments have been educational. Thanks! |
****I will have to do a lot more listening to Bowie, before I can do anymore talking about him. I think I might like this guy. I dismissed the first clip sent by Acman3. It was not representative and obviously done in jest. **** Does this mean you did a lot more listening and still don't like him? :-) ****But this is not about Bowie or Marsalis. It's about what they each represent. **** Correct! ****I am sure he would have given anything to have had Wynton's career, playing the music Wynton plays.**** ****I think the wiki page did mention something about 833,000 dollars per, U.S., for the Lincoln Center gig. That's called cutting to the chase. All else is moot.**** Wrong! First of all, as I have said, I don't consider Bowie to be a favorite player by any stretch. But, to your comment: with all due respect you just don't understand they mindset of musicians like Bowie. In fairness, there is no way that you could. I have known and worked with musicians steeped in this and similar genres (avant garde, "downtown", free, etc.), and I assure you that your take on their motivation and their view of their own place within the art world is way off. Most of these guys have an elitist counter-establishment, counter-culture mindset that genuinely eschews the kind of "success" that you refer to. They are incredibly committed to their "message". Like their music, their attitude about some of this is intended to turn traditional values and expectations upside down. I think that your tendency to always go to the issue of "jealousy" of this kind says more about your mindset than theirs, and may be part of the reason that you react to the non-traditional the way that you do. ****Rap does not reflect American cluture, if that even exists. Rap reflects the depravity and spiritual poverty of inner city America. Whenever it is played / heard, it creates an aura of great sadness.**** It most certainly does; although I agree about "depravity and spiritual poverty". Depravity and spiritual poverty that has blinded an entire generation in the inner city to some of the real reasons for the economic poverty. Sadly, these rap "artists" have become their artistic heroes instead of so many real heroes which we have discussed in this thread. What a waste! Additionally, the embrace of the rap/hip hop culture outside of the inner city reflects so much about our culture ("society"; if you prefer). A culture that wants simplistic art that requires little involvement other than feeling the beat. In which attitude has become more important than substance (as Learsfool points out) and which has been trained to be obsessed with the issue of race to the extent that it is terrified of criticizing the gratuitous ugliness of the music for fear of being labeled racist. And btw, that influence extends well beyond our country. I just returned from a three week tour of Asia (NY Phil) and I was astounded at the pervasive influence of the hip hop culture in China, Japan and especially Korea. It is everywhere; the pop music, television and it's commercials and the attire of young people. Rap in Korean is something to experience :-). Lastly, thanks for pointing out to me that I like noise. Who knew? :-) |
I personally never held Bowie's music up against other trumpeters. He didn't seem that interested in playing like other trumpeters, even the ones he quotes. The musicians he plays with seemed to enjoy playing with him, He was very well respected by most musicians, and a lot of people got something out of what he did do. The trumpeter Malachi Thompson says in his liner notes to one of his cd's that he was warned by Bowie, Joe Henderson , and Freddie Hubbard not to be a copy cat. He then tells of a time after a solo on Killer Joe, Quincy Jones asked, " Whose the kid? He sounds like Freddie Hubbard.....after taxes!" Everybody laughed, but later the other trumpet players in the band, Cat Anderson, Nat Adderley, and Donald Byrd encouraged him to keep developing his sound. It was expected to move the music forward, to not sound like others. Is this not still true today? As far as RAP. It seems to be all rhythm and lacks harmony. I am unable to understand it, but I don't think I'm supposed to.:) Free Jazz also lacks a certain basic music devise, tension and release. It mostly builds tension and becomes difficult to listen to, until you learn to enjoy constant tension. Most give up. |
Todays playlist: Roscoe Mithcell -- SOUND (Lester Bowie on Trumpet) I listened to this, more as an assignment or homework, than for any other reason. Normally when I listen to music, sometimes my wife will shout from the living room, one of two things, "play such and such"(usually Brubeck) or "Turn it up". Today she came into the room with a puzzled look on her face and asked "what's wrong?" She thought maybe the FM station was on the blink, or the CD player had malfunctioned. I said nope, that's the future of Jazz. This is not to be critical of Bowie. It's not him, it's the 'music' they choose to play. I tried hard to 'get it'. I will concede that maybe it's just me. Perhaps it's all going over my head. If so, I will try to be content with my be-bopers. I had to listen to Mingus and McCann afterwards, just to get all that pollution outta my head. Could not believe that I was still in the same 'genre'. This is NOT a must have. This is NOT even an ought to have. When you see the statement 'not for everyone' in reviews, take heed and beware. But it is aptly named! That's what you get, sound! Cheers |
The Frogman: *****I suspect Bowie was deadly serious about what he played in that clip***** OMG!! Bowie: Read my post to Learsfool. As far as the conflict between Wynton and other Jazz players, I think the wiki page did mention something about 833,000 dollars per, U.S., for the Lincoln Center gig. That's called cutting to the chase. All else is moot. Cheers |
Learsfool: *****based on what I have heard here - he is merely using humor to pretend to be outside, which to me makes him very hypocritical if he is criticizing folks like Wynton. But this isn't about Wynton.***** Well stated. Hypocritie is the perfect word. But this is not about Bowie or Marsalis. It's about what they each represent. I am sure he would have given anything to have had Wynton's career, playing the music Wynton plays. *****this humor and theatricality is as far as he goes. He is a performer putting on an act, much like many pop artists do - his playing/music making ON ITS OWN would not be enough to make it in his case, despite his good timing. I would disagree that he is actually furthering the art of jazz music, hence my earlier comment that he is hypocritical to criticize others for not being so.****** He found a 'niche' where he could be more, than he would be, going up against, the Hubbards and Morgans of the music world. If you are a musician, you had better find a place, or change profession. Tiny Tim found his. So did Bowie. ****I think this is a case of style masquerading as substance.***** True, but to be more exact, I would say it's trying to pass noise off as music. In fact, I see no reason to consider this music at all. And why is Jazz the dumping ground for these people? They could just as easily called it 'FOLK'. Cheers |
Hi Frogman (and others following this) - wow, we are really getting down to it now! This last post of yours is very thought provoking indeed. First, I agree that there is no substantive disagreement, and really didn't think there was in the first place. Your changing view of "substance" is something I glanced at when I mentioned aesthetics a couple of posts back. You choose an excellent example in discussing rap. What I find fascinating about rap is that what gives it substance, I think you will agree, has absolutely nothing to do with music. It is the words being spoken, and the message they contain. Rap is much closer to poetry than music. Of course the argument about whether the music or the lyrics of a song are more important is hundreds of years old now - clearly rap chooses the latter. As a performing musician (non-vocalist!), I used to be very puzzled by people who clearly only listened to certain groups/artists because they liked the lyrics of their songs, and in fact did not actually care much for the music. But they would listen over and over and over anyway because they liked "the message." I have always felt conflicted when talking with such people about music (and listening to the argument that such and such a song is good BECAUSE of the lyrics). Speaking of the avant-garde and whether or not an artist or an institution is furthering the art form, another conflict I have that is relevant to this discussion is about the whole museum-piece thing. As in, are orchestras (this discussion can be applied to jazz equally well, of course) museum pieces (is jazz dead)? Many want orchestras to be forward thinking and come up with new ideas, etc. Same in jazz, as has been discussed in this thread. However, with the deplorable state of music education especially here in the US now, if orchestras are NOT talking about composers to young kids, if they never hear the names Mozart and Beethoven from us - who the hell are they going to hear them from? I wonder about this more and more, as orchestras move towards more multi-media presentations and play more film music, even in education concerts, where not a single composers name is mentioned.... Bear with me now as I quote one of my teachers, Greg Hustis, the former principal horn of the Dallas Symphony. Again, they would apply equally to the jazz world. These comments were made in the liner notes of one of his recordings (Lyrical Gems For The Horn, on the Crystal label): "The works on this CD were chosen simply because they are beautiful music...There is no unifying musical or stylistic "theme"...pieces were selected without regard to marketing strategies...well-intentioned promoters seem obsessed with the notion that only "new" or "different" gimmicks will aid the ailing recording industry. All too often we see the production of substandard works by obscure, untalented composers, arrangements of arrangements, bizarre orchestrations, and a rush of "crossover" recordings, usually lame attempts to give classical musicians the glitzy luster of pop stars...maybe we should work harder to present music that more listeners might enjoy. We cannot completely understand why great music stirs the soul. Nevertheless, perhaps by emphasizing the beauty, not the marketing of classical music will lead more of us to experience its mysterious and powerful force." What does everyone think about this? Of course feel free to respond in terms of the jazz world, as this is ultimately a jazz thread. The same topics apply. Frogman is of course uniquely qualified to speak about both worlds, so? One comment I might throw out for discussion is that in the jazz world, Wynton seems to be trying BOTH approaches. |
Excellent comments, Learsfool; although it may seem otherwise, we have no substantive disagreement. This seeming dichotomy is further highlighted by a couple of interesting things that inadvertently go to the core of the issue. I am literally of two minds about all this, and that is the reason why I think it can be fairly said that we have no disagreement. Being someone who is steeped in the more traditional aspects of being a musician, I admit to an inner conflict concerning my reaction to the non-traditional; in this case, the avant-garde (in general, not just music). That's one mind. The other mind has (slowly) moved away from what at times was (and still is) an unnecessarily rigid view of art to a more accepting attitude that takes into account a changing world with changing attitudes and norms, and a changing view of what is "substance". That changing view of what substance is causes the most conflict for me. Not meaning to digress too much, but please bear with me: Rap music. I WANT to hate rap. It violates so much of what I have spent so many years studying, respecting, learning and trying to hone. Yet, how does one completely dismiss a movement in music (?) that has had such a huge impact. I seriously dislike it and don't respect it. But, I don't hate it because it had to be; it reflects our culture. We can hate our culture (and in some ways I do) and we can decry the decline of standards in our culture (and art) 'till we are blue in the face, but it won't change the direction of the art (?) that reflects it. Worst of all, we can be so rapped :-) up in hating it that we may miss those rare moments when I do find myself saying: "oh, ok, I get it". How good a job it does of reflecting the culture is what defines its quality; its level of substance. Interestingly, and on a personal note, it has been my twenty year old son, a gifted young film maker and a true artist, who has shown me the value of not so readily dismissing what may not conform to MY standards. I am not talking about an abandonment of standards, but simply being more accepting of a different view of standards. I really believe that is the respect for traditional standards combined with an open mind for the new that creates the healthiest environment for really great art to happen. The avante-guard in the arts (and I did not mean to suggest that rap is part of the avante-guard) seeks to break-down traditional standards and within this break-down a new set of standards takes shape that define it's "substance". That is not to say that one has to take on a "anything goes" or "it's all equally good" attitude. Not at all; there's still a lot of bullshit out there that tries to pass for art. As far as Bowie goes: As I said before, truth is that as I don't know nearly enough of his work; but, what I heard in Acman3's first clip, and some of what is on the two records of his that I own, held my interest and made me want to listen to it. That's a lot more than I can say for a lot of what's out there. Does the music of a player who has a perfectly developed tone and schooled technique but sounds like so many before him have more substance? I'm not so sure. I have many recordings of accomplished traditionalists that simply don't hold my attention. Additionally, when someone like Acman3, someone who has clearly shown to have a sophisticated appreciation of music and is not part of "the masses", says "I love Bowie" (or whoever) I have to, at least, stop and consider what it is that is grabbing his attention. I think I heard it in that first clip. Anyway, didn't mean to get preachy about this . Thanks for the great contributions. |
Interesting and good comments from everyone - this is definitely the best thread this site has ever had. Acman - you mention Bowie's humor, which is undeniable, and speak of him quoting the tradition, as well as playing outside of it. I guess what I am saying is that I do not hear him as ACTUALLY being outside of it at all, based on what I have heard here - he is merely using humor to pretend to be outside, which to me makes him very hypocritical if he is criticizing folks like Wynton. But this isn't about Wynton. Frogman, again I agree with almost all of your post, especially the statement that rhythmic feeling is fundamental to all music. I agree this is unarguable. I also agree that Bowie does have this great sense of it, as do the other trumpeters discussed in your post. I also agree that Bowie is humorous, unpredictable, and theatrical, based on the clips here. Here is where I disagree: for me, this humor and theatricality is as far as he goes. He is a performer putting on an act, much like many pop artists do - his playing/music making ON ITS OWN would not be enough to make it in his case, despite his good timing. I would disagree that he is actually furthering the art of jazz music, hence my earlier comment that he is hypocritical to criticize others for not being so. He may tell a good story, but so do many others. It is fun and entertaining on the surface, but for me it remains surface (and by the way, I would NOT argue that music must be serious to have substance, this is not what I mean at all). And I still fail to see how any of these clips show he is "outside the tradition". A great many other jazz musicians used humor, including Armstrong and Wynton (though in his case almost always without the irreverence). I don't think there is anything particularly novel in what he is doing in these clips, unless I am missing something. I think this is a case of style masquerading as substance. |
I will have to do a lot more listening to Bowie, before I can do anymore talking about him. I think I might like this guy. I dismissed the first clip sent by Acman3. It was not representative and obviously done in jest. But the Cosby clip was not bad. He also played with a group led by a guy, that played trumpet with me in high school! So, he can't be all bad. :) Frogman: A lot of the stuff you wrote about Bowie and players like him, in your last post, could apply to Mingus!! And in my humble opinion, no one, out ranks Mingus! So maybe Bowie is a person I need to hear more. I will put him on my list, right after Fats Naravvo. Thanks for the time and effort. Cheers |
Now things are getting interesting! Now, we are getting into some of the more elusive and fascinating aspects of music and it's appreciation. Firstly, and for the sake of clarity, let's have context (and forgive me for quoting myself): ****Now, I would rather listen to Lee Morgan's brand of story telling, but that's not the point. **** I am not about to run out and buy Lester Bowie records that I don't already have (only a couple). My point was simply that I respect what he is doing, and that in at least one essential element (story telling) he, subjectively, strikes a chord in me while Wynton strikes a different kind of chord; a chord that, at the end of the day, is just not as interesting for me. What do I mean by that?: Learsfool, thank you for your kind words; the feeling is mutual. Now, I don't like to frame my comments with my professional experiences, but sometimes it is unavoidable. One of the most important lessons that I have learned having spent a career (forty years; yikes!) living a rather schizophrenic professional life of vacillation between the classical and the commercial/jazz music worlds is the simple fact that in spite of the obvious common threads, the stereotypes of the judgmental attitudes that one side (genre) sometimes holds toward the other are simply that: stereotypes that are easily shot down by the simple fact that, when all is said and done, it is the feeling of the music (not the tone and not the technical skill) that matters most. Obviously, in some genres fully developed and beautiful tone and a CERTAIN TYPE of precision is necessary; while in others, looseness and even a certain kind of irreverence towards the more traditional elements of the craft is the order of the day. Still, even in our classical music world, the feeling of what we play is of paramount importance even if has to occur within fairly controlled parameters. Personally, I admire jazz players who are able to abandon all decorum and simply and convincingly express emotion or tell a story, wether it be via humor, theatricality or intellectuality. I think Bowie does that. Did he "push the boundaries of jazz" as you ask? I think so. His sense of humor and unpredictability were undeniable and there was a certain theatricality to his music which, ironically, was a throwback to an era when jazz (as Rok likes to point out) was expected to entertain; as opposed to the character that much of it has taken on currently, as that of a kind of museum piece. Rhythmic feeling is THE most important aspect of music; especially jazz. Personally, I don't think the point can be argued. At its most basic and simplistic level, the obvious proof of that assertion is that the first musical instrument was the drum. How deeply "in the pocket" a player plays is (I think) what separates the men from the boys. Of course, that can also mean a player's use of space (silence) and his overall timing (as in the case of Bowie) of the seemingly nonsensical vocalizing and bastardization of the usual trumpetisms. Another irony of this discussion is in Wynton's reverence for Louis Armstrong's music. If anyone has to ask why that is, simply listen for just how deeply in the pocket he played; it was incredibly rhythmically grounded. I am not sure it can be explained much beyond that, but it is there to hear and feel. Bowie's playing has been compared to Armstrong's in that regard; hence the irony. This is interesting commentary by Bill Cosby about Bowie. But, most importantly, listen to Bowie's playing as the clip ends and fades out. The guy could play; by any standard, traditional or otherwise. To be able to hide that fact so effectively for the sake of his musical message is art by any standard; if, arguably, bizarre. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G0JF05quIJA |
Hello Learsfool, I hope while being an interesting hour it was not too painful. I see your point of view and frankly believe most people would agree with you and Rok. Rok said he had never heard Bowie's playing, so I played some things for him and others, who also had not heard his playing, so they could make up their own minds. I find his playing always interesting and full of humor, if not always a beautiful tone. As Frogman said, he quotes from the tradition( think Cootie Williams) as much as playing outside. Anyway, at least you now know you are not a fan. Perhaps, someone else might have found it had some social redeeming qualities. We all have different things we are looking for in music, and I appreciate and respect your opinions, but disagree in this instance. |
I have just spent a very interesting hour reading the posts from yesterday and today and listening to the clips of Bowie, and thinking about all of it. I had never heard of Bowie, believe it or not, and quite frankly, don't care to ever again. As Frogman said, comparison of the actual trumpet playing is pointless - he is not in the class of Davis, Hubbard, Morgan, etc., let alone Marsalis. This is an aesthetic thing, but I personally have a big problem, no matter what the genre of music, with performers who just cannot produce a truly good sound. And yes, I fully realize that he is playing bad on purpose in that first clip - BUT he doesn't really ever produce anything resembling a pure tone in any of those clips - I personally found them almost unlistenable. Based on these posted clips, I must agree with Marsalis that Bowie is just "another guy who could never REALLY play." My emphasis, though I would suspect it was Wynton's as well. Frogman's posts are as usual excellent; I pretty much agree with almost everything thing in them in general. I do want to ask, however, if you are arguing that Bowie as a musician (as opposed to as a trumpet player) is "original" or if he is really "pushing the boundaries of the art forward." And if so, how? |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PppJOrnVtkg I love Lester Bowie! Lester said of Wynton, " With his chops and my brain, I could have been one of the greatest". |
****This is the ONLY thing you have ever said, ever, that I just don't get**** Wow, high praise indeed! But, I think you are quoting someone else; although I do feel that Stravinsky is one of the great composers and Mozart certainly is also. ****You want to compare him in a manner to show he has weakness, let's try Hubbard, Morgan, Miles. Not Lester Bowie!**** I did; reread my post. ****He may have broken every 'rule' in classical composition, but, its's a nice piece of music.**** Within a very narrow scope perhaps, but not even close to breaking every rule; that wouldn't happen for about 200 years. With all due respect, when you understand that you will understand Stravinsky. ****I meant his peers, not you personally**** Of course that is what I meant. I referred to his peers; I have no personal stake in this. ****Why is Jazz the only genre where the music has to undergo constant change or so-called 'progress'. Folks have no problem listening to Bach, Mozart etc... for centuries!!**** Who says jazz is the only genre that undergoes constant change? A better question would be: when one considers how much jazz changed from its beginning to its "end according to Rok", why would it stop changing? Additionally, are you also saying that Stravinsky is a figment of our imagination? IOW, who says Classical hasn't changed. That is the point; art changes and evolves. Without Mozart (and others) there would not have been a Beethoven, and on and on to, yes, Stravinsky and beyond. ****Listening to Cab Calloway do 'minnie the moochie' on pbs as I type. It don't get any better. How you gonna 'improve' it?**** Well, to quote you, I could simply say "You can't be serious!". But, I think you've inadvertently hit the nail on the head; I think this is where you get hung up. You seem to always think in terms of "improvement". Evolution doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "improvement". You also seem to prefer the term "progress" to simply evolution. Improvement and progress are very personal definitions and don't reflect what art naturally does regardless of one's personal preferences. "Music is the sole domain in which man realizes the present.” ― Igor Stravinsky “To listen is an effort, and just to hear is no merit. A duck hears also.” ― Igor Stravinsky |
*****___In his autobiography, Miles Davis—who Marsalis said had left jazz and "went into rock"[12]—hedged his praise of Marsalis by suggesting that he was unoriginal. He also found him too competitive, saying "Wynton thinks playing music is about blowing people up on stage." In 1986, in Vancouver, Davis stopped his band to eject an uninvited Marsalis from the stage. Davis said "Wynton can't play the kind of shit we were playing", and twice told Marsalis, "Get the fuck off."[13] Some critical exchanges have included insults. Besides insinuating that Davis had pandered to audiences, Marsalis said Davis dressed like a "buffoon". Trumpeter Lester Bowie called Marsalis "brain dead", "mentally-ill", and "trapped in some opinions that he had at age 21... because he's been paid to". In reply, Marsalis said Bowie was "another guy who never really could play".******_______ This is great stuff!! Everyone firing, but, Wynton was right on target. The Emperor Strikes Back!! ahahaha Cheers |
***Okra in a taco?**** Okra in anything is GREAT! One of my favorite foods. ****Was this a set-up, Acman3? :-)**** If it was, it was lost on me. I had no idea they had exchanged 'pleasantries'. But, it is good to know, that Wynton has returned fire. ****In most respects any comparison of the two players is as pointless**** Not to mention being an insult to Marsalis. You want to compare him in a manner to show he has weakness, let's try Hubbard, Morgan, Miles. Not Lester Bowie! ****is as absurd as claiming that Stravinsky is not worthy to be considered one of the great classical composers.***** This is the ONLY thing you have ever said, ever, that I just don't get. I think the statement in the previous post was "Stravinky ranks right up there with Mozart"!! You cannot be serious! ****For this listener it's fairly simple: the Lester Bowie clip had me truly engaged; I wanted to hear it in its entirety. Why?....considering the funky (as in bad) trumpet playing. Hard to put into words. First of all, that kind of playing requires a certain level of skill and control in order to "sound bad" (hang in there, Rok). Maybe it was the undeniable humor in his playing. But, I think most of all it's something that is impossible to really identify. IT JUST DID. The vibe, the timing, the unpredictability, the occasional and unexpected references to the traditional simply did the job of telling a convincing story that made me want to listen from beginning to end.**** It is true that some things can be so awful you cannot turn away. I think Mozart did a piece called, or subtitled, 'A Musical Joke" He may have broken every 'rule' in classical composition, but, its's a nice piece of music. It's still being recorded today. The Bowie thing was just noise. It's funny, only if you knew a Great trumpet playing was messing around. Since I have never heard of this player, I took it different, even though I knew it was supposed to be funny. And I responded in that manner. Besides I am not trying to judge this man's entire career on one throw-a-way tune. That is the only thing I have ever heard him play. ****There is no "jealousy" involved here and to suggest otherwise is plain silly and a smoke screen.***** I meant his peers, not you personally. And to suggest otherwise would indeed be silly. You should know this better than the layman. We really have no disagreement. I think we both know where the two players stand in Jazz. Question: Why is Jazz the only genre where the music has to undergo constant change or so-called 'progress'. Folks have no problem listening to Bach, Mozart etc... for centuries!! Listening to Cab Calloway do 'minnie the moochie' on pbs as I type. It don't get any better. How you gonna 'improve' it? Cheers |
Let's talk about food for a moment. There is a lot to be said for eating a great meal at a fine French restaurant whose chef is trained and skilled in the art of traditional French cuisine and who prepares dishes which are delectable in their perfection. There's also a lot to be said for finding that little taco joint that serves up some really amazing tacos which are a little different every time you go there. The cook is a guy who simply has "that thing" that allows him to turn whatever ingredients he found at the market that morning into something really special. Okra in a taco? Well, he couldn't find good looking chiles that morning; and somehow it worked. There's really no point in comparing the two "dining" experiences as they are completely different and it's like claiming that a banana is better than an orange. Yet, if I was forced to eat at only one of the two establishments for several days in a row, I (and many others) would take the taco joint in a second. For some, the funkiness and unpredictability in the taco joint's menu may be too much to take. This analogy may be a little forced, but it goes (hopefully) to the subject of subjective reaction to music. I had promised myself that I would never again comment about Wynton Marsalis on this thread; oh well. Discussions on the subject have a tendency to get very heated and confrontational; unnecessarily so, and I would hope that the reasons why there are differences of opinion about Wynton's ultimate relevance can be considered without drama. So, why am I bringing up the subject again, and risk incurring the wrath of Rok? Well, because he brought it up (again!?!) and, even more importantly, because Acman3's contribution of the Lester Bowie clip on the heels of Rok's reference to Wynton makes it irresistible since these two players have been very publicly critical of each other. Was this a set-up, Acman3? :-) In most respects any comparison of the two players is as pointless as comparing the two restaurants, but it creates a good backdrop for discussing what is certainly on of the most interesting subjects in art; subjective reaction. IMO, to dismiss contemporary, post-bop, avante-garde, what-ever-we -want-to-call-it jazz is not only closed minded and plain silly, but worst of all points to not truly understanding the true spirit of jazz. We can agree to disagree or simply not like the direction that jazz has gone in over the last several decades; but if we honor Jazz's spirit we have to, at least, try to understand why the practitioners of the art feel the way they do. Jazz evolves, it has to; and to not give credence to the art of those participating in its evolution (like the result, or not) is as absurd as claiming that Stravinsky is not worthy to be considered one of the great classical composers. For this listener it's fairly simple: the Lester Bowie clip had me truly engaged; I wanted to hear it in its entirety. Why?....considering the funky (as in bad) trumpet playing. Hard to put into words. First of all, that kind of playing requires a certain level of skill and control in order to "sound bad" (hang in there, Rok). Maybe it was the undeniable humor in his playing. But, I think most of all it's something that is impossible to really identify. IT JUST DID. The vibe, the timing, the unpredictability, the occasional and unexpected references to the traditional simply did the job of telling a convincing story that made me want to listen from beginning to end. Now, I would rather listen to Lee Morgan's brand of story telling, but that's not the point. The point is that they are both convincing with their story telling skills. I simply prefer one over the other; but respect both. Often, when I listen to Wynton I marvel at the beauty of his "penmanship", but not so much the story. The man is phenom and has garnered a tremendous amount acclaim (awards); deservedly so and it would be silly to claim otherwise. But, I think that precisely because of this the very highest form of scrutiny is also appropriate. There is no "jealousy" involved here and to suggest otherwise is plain silly and a smoke screen. There are legitimate issues for those practitioners (like Bowie) whose mission it is to continually push the boundaries of the art forward and why there is resistance to a traditionalist approach should be obvious. We have a tendency to focus on the criticism of Wynton by some like Bowie, but it's important to remember that Wynton has always been critical and very condescending of players like Bowie. Loved the clip. Thanks for sharing. |
At last, a trumpet player with whom I can relate :) I sounded just like that in high school :) Very 'interesting' clip. I have at least two CDs with Lester Bowie. Malachi Thompson & Africa Brass -- BUDDY BOLDEN'S RAG featuring Lester Bowie and Roscoe Mitchell Sextet -- SOUND When I first glanced at your post, I thought I would pull them out and listen to them. After listenting to your clip, I am now afraid to listen to them. :) But, 'Buddy Bolden's Rag' should be safe. That's Nawlins!! Both CDs are on the DELMARK label. That label is mostly associated with Chicago-based Blues artists. The Junior Wells and Buddy Guy crowd. Seems like an unlikely label for this type music. Good Clip. Today, I just made a Joyful noise. The Fairfield Four -- STANDING IN THE SAFETY ZONE Canticleer -- WHERE THE SUN WILL NEVER GO DOWN Canticleer -- HOW SWEET THE SOUND Original Cast -- THE GOSPEL AT COLONUS The Human Voice! Wow! Cheers |
I love Lester Bowie! Some funny stuff, but listen till the end. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX24Ry3HxhM |
Nice clip Acman3; lots of famous faces in that crowd. In order of appearence: Frank (juiced and showing surprisingly bad time clapping his hands :-) Betty White Skitch Henderson Ernest Borgnine Ella Tony Bennett Jean Stapleton Barry Manilow Merv Griffin Chris Isaak Frankie Valli (?) Carol Channing Sidney Poitier Bea Arthur Those were the famous ones that I spotted. Now for the important ones :-) Henry Mancini (piano/leader) Jack Sperling (drums) Cootie Williams (trumpet) Conrad Gozzo (trumpet) Pete Candoli (trumpet) Dick Nash (trombone) Bill Watrous (trombone) Dan Block (alto sax) Plas Johnson ? (tenor) |
Today's Playlist: Ornette Coleman -- SOUND MUSEUM HIDDEN MAN Not nearly as irritating as I thought it would be. This stuff must be growing on me. BUT, I do think music like this should be 'explained' in the liner notes. Coleman played Sax, Violin and Trumpet!! His playing was so compelling to me, I just forgot all my preconceived notions about his music. I did recognize "what a friend we have in Jesus" There is a 'companion' CD to this one entitled 'Sound Museum Three Women'. It contains the same tunes plus one more!?!? Enough for one day, I will listen to the Three Women later. Eddie "Lockjaw" Davis / Harry "Sweets" Adison / Al Grey -- JAZZ AT THE PHILHARMONIC 1983 These greats are not so much playing as having a nice, relaxed (perfect tempo), conversation. The interplay between them is just awesome. Just great! Perfect? Nothing to say, you must hear it. A must have! This is Jazz at it's best. Chico Freeman -- DESTINY'S DANCE This is as 'modern' as Jazz needs to be. Modern but still Jazz. Wynton Marsalis on trumpet. A young Wynton, the notes say. Recorded in 1981, so I googled Wynton to see how old that would make him. Born 1961 so he was 20 on this recording. While I was on the Wiki page I read his entry. WOW!!! Is there any award or honor this man has not received?? I mean world wide. Please take a moment ro read this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wynton_Marsalis For a good laugh, don't miss the section entitled CRITICISMS. I was laughing out loud for real. What a bunch of jerks. The envy and jealousy is almost palpable. Required reading for all Wynton Bashers!! Cheers |
*****The coolest video ever!***** It could be!!! Great atmosphere, singing and playing. The Band was awesome. I think I recognized everyone the camera zoomed in on. Just don't ask me to name them. Comes with age. Good to see Ella. They are all gone now. :( Frank looked amazingly like Herbert von Karajan did in his later years. After his, Karajan's, pompadour collapsed. :) Good clip. Cheers |
The coolest video ever! See how many people you recognize. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNCzfPhdd2M |
Today's Listen: Michel Legrand -- LEGRAND JAZZ Jazz standards arranged by the Frenchman Michel Legrand. Great lineup. Miles, Trane, Evans, Woods, Ben Webster and many more. Just by looking at the photos in the booklet, and reading the notes, it is obvious that this guy is full of himself!! They came close to giving him credit for creating Jazz. Well, at least it seemed that way. I will have to admit that I liked the arrangments. He managed to avoid sterlizing the music. And of course the playing was great. Started off with the Thomas 'Fats' Waller tune 'The Jitterbug Waltz'. Always like to see the music of 'Fats' Waller represented. Speaking of underrated! Some of the photos in the booklet show him apparently 'directing' the best players in Jazz. I hate that! Sonny Clark -- SONNY'S CRIB One of the better Blue Note era recordings. Excellent material and very cohesive playing. Trane and Donald Byrd on board. A must have! Phineas Newborn Jr -- THE GREAT JAZZ PIANO OF PHINEAS NEWBORN This guy has great skill on the keyboards. Tunes by Bud Powell, Bobby Timmons, Miles, Rollins and Ellington. Leroy Vinnegar on Bass on half the tunes, Sam Jones on the other half. I remember Vinnegar from Les McCann's 'Swiss Movement'. Nice set. If you like Newborn, this is one of his best. Cheers |
Chazro, agree about Woods; one of the greats. BTW, he was married to Charlie Parker's wife. I posted this a while ago and think it fell through the cracks. Interesting look at his life as a jazz musician with some great commentary: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6SJxmCzYpoo |
Today's Listen: John Coltrane -- COLTRANE LIVE AT BIRDLAND Great set. This was before he got in his Sunship and took off for Stellar Regions. Great version of Afro-Blue. The recording had problems. Coltrane from the left speaker, Piano and bass inbetween and the drums from the right speaker! Sucks. But the music is exceptional. Duke Ellington -- AND HIS MOTHER CALLED HIM BILL Recorded in honor and memory of Billy Strayhorn. My favorite Ellington disc. The Ellington Band!! What an instrument! Anyone interested in hearing great Sax playing should listen to this CD. Hodges on 'Blood Count'!! Strayhorn died about 6 months prior to this recording. He and Ellington were very close when it came to composing and arranging. Very eloquent notes in the liner from Ellington, about Strayhorn. Great loss. Doc Cheatham/Nicholas Payton -- DOC CHEATHAM & NICHOLAS PAYTON Lazy down-home Nawlins style Jazz. Cheatham sings. He really should not. Nice relaxed playing by two guys who keep the flame alive. Mostly well known standards. The Ellington and Coltrane are must haves. Cheers |
LOVE Sophisticated Giant! I've got my original beat up vinyl copy, a used European pristine vinyl copy, and the CD! Columbia released 'Montreux Summit', 2 dbl LP's featuring their artist roster live in Montreux during the 70's. Largely a monster Fusion-fest but sprinkled in the mix were solo cuts of Stan Getz AND a few cuts featuring Dexter and his Sophisticated Giant band, very rare and special for a fan such as myself. Also LOVE Phil Woods, I own close to 20 different recordings of his. I'd recommend: Phil & Quill Rights Of Swing Musique Du Bois Images (W/Michel LeGrand) - side B Live From the Showboat Song For Sisyphus Phil Woods/Lew Tabakin Evolution (W/the Little Big band) Real life (also w/LBG) An Affair To Remember Celebration Groovin' To Marty Paich American Songbook ....and this is just some, not all, of my PW collection. What's amazing is that I probably own less than 50% of his discography! He's been playing for almost as long as I've been alive (60). One of the last of the originals still with us. I think he was married to Charlie Parker's daughter, a true living legend! |
Great stuff, Acman3. Sophisticated Giant was one of his first recordings after his return to the states from Europe. The live clip with Kenny Drew is wonderful and appropriate given a discussion in another thread about pop tunes as jazz vehicles. I saw Dexter at the Vanguard a few times in the late seventies/early eighties and they were unforgettable experiences. Thanks for sharing. |
Thanks Frogman! How could 7 people give thumbs down to that? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9ILMmDB0kI The great Kenny Drew and Niels-Henning Orsted Peterson. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QyWFJRIYYs |
I listened to this today: Irakere -- THE BEST OF IRAKERE Plenty of Latin brass vibrato and of course the incomparable Cuban percussion. Many of the future heavyweights of Cuban Jazz are here. With D'Rivera, Sandoval and Valdes on board, what's not to like. Best heard next to a dance floor. Andrew Hill -- POINT OF DEPARTURE I made it through 2 tracks today. An improvement, but I'm still not there yet. Great lineup and they all seem to play well, and know what they were doing, I just didn't know. Maynard Ferguson -- CONQUISTADOR The purists and snobs of Jazz pan it, but I love it! Great flute work on 'Theme from Star Trek'. Irakere and Ferguson were fun. Hill and Dolphy and company, were thinking too much. Cheers |
***** I guarantee you that you can play me ANYTHING that Phil Woods ever did and after two measures, I would be able to tell you that it was Phil.****** Well, since I don't have anything by Woods, he is not on my 'Instant Recognition' list. Didn't even realize he was on the MJQ disc until I played it the other day. He also appears on 'The Jazz Soul of Porgy & Bess'. How anyone could screw that up, is beyond me, but they managed. No fault of Woods, he was just a member of the sax section. Much younger and slimmer. Lousy arrangements. Cheers |
****Turned out it was Phil Woods!! Grrrrrrrrr. **** I can't resist. Why Grrrrrrr? ****He can play.**** You think?! ****Beautiful tone and phrasing**** In the interest of the never ending discussion about the benefits of fine tuning one's listening skills, I guarantee you that you can play me ANYTHING that Phil Woods ever did and after two measures, I would be able to tell you that it was Phil. Is that a benefit? You bet; well, at the very least, you wouldn't have to get up from your chair to see who was playing :-) |
Things I listened to Today: Keith Jarrett -- THE KOLN CONCERT Tour de force. Quite an accomplishment for a full CD of unaccompanied Jazz piano. Howlin' Wolf -- THE CHESS BOX CD #2 Warning!! This is the real blues. Might be a little raw for some. One of the all time great bluesmen. All of his best stuff is on the Chess Box 3-CD set. A Must have fort any blues lover. Labi Siffre -- SO STRONG Exceptional songs. Great and unique voice. Not a weak track on the disc. This is an example of great song writing. Modern Jazz Quartet -- MJQ & FRIENDS Typical MJQ, which means, very good. They play each tune with a different 'friend'. I higly recommend them all. In the ionterest of full disclosure, when I played the MJQ disc, on the tune 'All the things you are' I had to get up and go read the notes to see who was on sax. Turned out it was Phil Woods!! Grrrrrrrrr. He can play. Beautiful tone and phrasing. Cheers |
Thanks for clarifying, I thought I remembered you saying that you played trumpet. It was probably because of this comment that I misinterpreted, ****I was led to Mr. Harrell in the mid eighties by a trumpet player/teacher who worked....**** and your affinity for Dave Douglas. Anyway, nice Howard McGhee clips; thanks. |
Frogman, I own, and make loud noises with a tenor sax. I would hardly call it playing. ;} No trumpet. I read that a young Miles Davis studied the way Mcghee played. If you think about how Miles played with Charlie Parker in the late 40's, it may be true. It is said he was among the best, but kept having drug problems and jail time. |
Nice, Acman3; you did it again, finding yet another great player that we hadn't covered. As a trumpet player yourself, I am sure you notice the similarity of tone to Dizzy's. He was one of the first trumpet beboppers and I know his playing from some of Charlie Parker's records. There is a Bird compilation titled "Bird In Time" that features McGhee and includes some amazing interviews and commentary about Bird that is worth having. Thanks for sharing. |
