*****One cannot judge art outside of its rightful historical context. Why? Because art always reflects the times; it is the RESULT of the time during which it was created. How good a job art does of reflecting the times is, ultimately, what determines wether it is good art or not. THIS, WETHER WE LIKE THAT PARTICULAR ART OR NOT!!!!! And chances are that if we don't like the art of a particular era, what we are saying is that we don't like the era. That is why there is always good art in any era; there will always be good artists (it is part of the human condition) expressing their reflection of the era. Wether we like what that era stands for, is a different matter.*****
I am not sure I agree. We have often judged art and artist outside of their era. And still do. How many artist thru history died poor and unknown, but are now considered among the greatest ever. And sometimes the reverse is true. And I am not sure the great masters in Europe for example, painters and musicians, represented their era. That era was pretty bleak for the vast majority of Europeans. I guess they played, wrote and painted for the poeple with the MONEY to pay. :)
The MOST IMPORTANT part of any argument is the premise upon which it is based. I think this is the source of all our disagreements. You say the art of any era is important, and can be considered great when evaluated in the era that produced it. I say great art is great art, regardless of era created or judged.
Sort of like saying the music of Philip Glass is great, unless of course, we are in 19th century Germany, then it's garbage!
Modern 20th century classical music is not the equal of Mozart and company. Period. It is not as important as Mozart, even to the listeners of this current era! The same goes for Fusion. Wynton: Not saying he is the greatest or any kind of god, just saying that, what he is doing is more important to the future of Jazz, than any Fusion players I am aware of.
To your point of, why pickup Marsalis, when you can pickup Ellington etc.... I made the same point to you a few life times ago.:) I said why pick up Fusion, when Hubbard and Mingus are sitting on the same shelf. Makes sense based on my premise!
Cheers |
Let's put the Herbie Hancock thing to rest first. I didn't like the clip. No big deal. I have plenty of Hancock and a lot more on LP. I like the guy.
I think there is one element we have not mentioned in our discussion of the elvolution of Jazz, and that thing is MONEY!
It could be, that if Rockers, of limited talent, weren't making more money on one tour, than Miles made in his life, this Fusion thing might never have happened. Is it a natural elvolution, or one driven by money.
MONEY has come close to destorying many art forms and music genres. Look what happened to Country Music. No relation to the music I grew up on. Blues, has become almost laughable.. Gospel, with all this 'Mass Choir' non-sense and a bunch of over-weight women making folks motion sick. They just say the word Jesus, every now and then. Sterile!
So before we can evaluate change, we should decide if it's a natrual progression, or something that's market driven. That would make it an artificial change.
But Hancock is OK in my book. So is Corea.
The playing on Marsalis and Clapton Play the Blues:
The clarinet player may be average. Even Below aqverage. Maybe any player could have played what he played. You misssed my point. It was not the players, it was the music! The Tune, and esp the arrangement of that Tune. That moment! That's why I think you underestimate Marsalis. This guy is subtle and plays with taste. Just like he did on the Christmas thingy with Battle. BTW, no one has ever heard THAT Layla or THAT Walk With Thee!!
Cheers |
Glad you decided to hang in there.
****you seem to be sayin that 'evolution' must mean improvement.****
Absolutely not, and I would say that "improvement" in the "evolution" of any art is very rare!!! And not only is this at the core of our little cyber-soap opera it is one of the main issues that art lovers (any art) grapple with, consciously or not, especially in our time in history. I know some may think that I get "preachy" about this stuff, but this perspective is missing for many and it is KEY! :
One cannot judge art outside of its rightful historical context. Why? Because art always reflects the times; it is the RESULT of the time during which it was created. How good a job art does of reflecting the times is, ultimately, what determines wether it is good art or not. THIS, WETHER WE LIKE THAT PARTICULAR ART OR NOT!!!!! And chances are that if we don't like the art of a particular era, what we are saying is that we don't like the era. That is why there is always good art in any era; there will always be good artists (it is part of the human condition) expressing their reflection of the era. Wether we like what that era stands for, is a different matter.
THAT is why the music of ANY era, hyphenated name or not, IS relevant and important; and why Wynton's music, while good, will never be as good nor as relevant as Satchmo or Ellington. It is why late Trane and "Bitches Brew" (to use your examples) are great art; like it or not. So, for this listener, what is the point of listening to Wynton when I can listen to Loui and Ellington who created that music as an expression and reflection of THEIR time; a time that gave birth to that music. The current time does not inspire that music; that is what I meant when I alluded to Wynton's music as "museum". Wynton's music looks back to a different era, and for that reason it is not as good; and not in the theoretical sense either, it is simply not on the same high level of execution. Look, no one is saying that it is not good nor worth listening to, and kudos need to be given for keeping a certain flame alive and reminding those who are TOO willing to forget the past; but, again, when there's only so many hours in the day, what is the point when one can listen to Loui, Clifford, Morgan, Dizzy, Miles, and, and, and....? ITS BEEN DONE BETTER BEFORE. Or, Dave Douglas (thanks Acman3) who looks forward, not so much backwards. This takes us to the next point:
****The guy on clarinet!! Wow! I am somewhat surprised that you do see it. If I may respectfully suggest, sometimes maybe you are a little too analytical. Stop thinking about it, and just let it wash over you. ****
First of all, I think you meant to say "surprised you (DONT) see it". Of course I see it. Too analytical? I appreciate the respect, but no way; not analytical enough! Hang out with some musicians sometime and talk music; you think I am analytical.......!? You think your eyes glaze over NOW ?! Respectfully, it is you who don't see it. You always make the mistake of assuming that analysis precludes letting the music "wash over you"; that it has to be one or the other. Just the opposite is true, and you don't seem to want to get a handle on why being able to appreciate how, for instance, Santana is NOTHING like Headhunters, in the ways that matter: THE MUSIC, not just the instruments used. That's pretty sophomoric, if you don't mind my saying so. Sure, Victor Goines sounds terrific on the "Layla" clip, so what? Have you listened to Jimmy Hamilton or Narney Bigard lately? I guarantee you that if you ask Victor how he would compare his own playing to Hamilton's ot Bigard's he would tell you that he feels like an imposter. So.....
Look, most great musicians have one thing in common: humility. Humility about their own talents and place in music history; they are always willing to learn. Why should the listener be any different? |
****He is a great instrumentalist and a great ambassador for jazz; but he has added little to the evolution of jazz. His undeniable and great contribution is of the "museum" type. "Layla" with Clapton? Please, are you serious? I would respectfully suggest that you are letting your admiration for the man and everything that he represents influence your perception of his musical relevance.*****
you seem to be sayin that 'evolution' must mean improvement. I disagree. I think we could say that Philip Glass has had a hand in the 'evolution' of classical music. Along with a few more of the 20th century 'composers'. I think the masters, Mozart, LvB, Bach and those type people, are resting in their graves just fine. Feeling very secure. As are Armstrong, Ellington, Morgan, Mingus, Adderely et al. Evolution or not, the great stuff will be relevant forever. The Chaff will be blown away in due time.
Layla: Great arrangement? Yes!! Is it complex? Profound? Game changer? Probably not. Did / do I enjoy listening to it? Absolutely!! As I do 'just a closer walk with thee'. I was in Nawlins while they were playing that! :) The guy on clarinet!! Wow! I am somewhat surprised that you do see it. If I may respectfully suggest, sometimes maybe you are a little too analytical. Stop thinking about it, and just let it wash over you. Now I could try to be 'hip' and trash it, and profess my love of stuff like Bitches Brew or Late Coltrane. But I would be lying. As you know, You can find magic in music anywhere. Just a few notes that make you say, out loud, YES! There are quite a few of those moments on the Marsalis / Clapton CD. I will now order the DVD.
I will address your other points tomorrow.
Cheers |
****Similarities: instrumental, electric instruments, Latin percussion, same era.*****
This is amazing! You nailed it! That's exactly what I thought. Big group, lots of percussion, no singing, and drenched in latin Flavor! 1970's written all over it.
****That's where the similarities end and says nothing about style, and overall vibe.*****
Left that part to you smart guys! :) Maybe I should have used Mongo Santa-Maria's 'Cloud Nine'. More Jazz?
I said it was better than the Hancock piece because, I had already put them in the same bag. Rightly or wrongly. And in the same bag, for me, Santana kicks butt.
****Santana's band was very exciting (dynamic range?) like few others, but was clearly coming, first and foremost, out of a rock bag with Latin and funk elements. Herbie's Headhunters were jazz players bringing that sensibility to a funk bag.*****
Even a pro like you used the word FUNK in a description of both groups. So you can readily see how a novoice like me could get confused and overlook the finer points of the performances. Of course when I hear the word FUNK. I think 'Parliament' or 'James brown and the JB's'. We don't wanna go there.:)
Ideals I carry in my head.
The 1970's were a low point for Jazz. Sterile. I spent most of my time and money on pop and classical. I spent the decade traveling between Germany - Huntsville, AL - El Paso - Huntsville Again - Korea - and Germany Again.
We used to go to our favorite Korean bar and listen to the Stone's 'Sympathy for the Devil', all night!! Slim Pickings, but Better than nothing.
Not exactly fertile grounds for Jazz, except for the record stores in Germany. The whole thing was like a blur, a lost decade for me.
O-10 was correct to mention that 'Bitches Brew' started the decade. A harbinger of things to come. A Jazz date that will live in infamy!:)
Cheers |
**** I would respectfully suggest that an apology is in order.****
I Agree!
Acman3: I apologize for any comment I made they you felt was out of place or insulting in any way. It was not my intent.
I will have to use more of these :) :) in my rants to try to convey tone / intent. The statement that started with HOW DARE, was directed at the entire thread. I said 'you people' I should have added a, :).
The solos on Layla and the hundred times thingy, I assumed you were talking about Wynton, because I thought we were talking about the Jazz player. I cannot comment on Clapton's solo because I don't own any music by him except the thing with Marsalis. So it could well be old hat, to everyone else. BTW, I did like Clapton's playing.
I agree with The Frogman, yes it does happen, that you make excellent contributions to this thread. Much more informative and thoughtful than mine. You should post more often. That could be because you engage your brain before you type. I tend to skip that step.
I am not a bully. There are enough of those out in the General Population on Audiogon. That's why I never venture out. I also realize, and consider myself to be, the least informed person on this thread, so I am hardly in a position to try and bully anyone.
Again, I apologize.
Cheers |
Now, now, Rok, you promised to "never again". Well, this is one of those times when I have to ask myself: "Do I let that comment go by in the interest of not getting Rok riled up? Or, do I respond to the comment in a way that promotes healthy debate, and take my chances; after all he DID open the door. Hell, we know the answer..... :-) Two issues: ****This reminded me of the Hancock piece**** Huh!? I don't get it, but one's REACTION to music is personal and subjective; good enough for me. Similarities: instrumental, electric instruments, Latin percussion, same era. That's where the similarities end and says nothing about style, and overall vibe. Still, it made you think of it; can't argue with that and to think of good music is always a good thing. ****this is better than the Hancock piece**** Is an apple better than a banana? Not trying to be provocative, Rok; but, that comment demands a comparison of the two. Like you, I love that stuff; but, it is nothing like Herbie's music. Santana's band was very exciting (dynamic range?) like few others, but was clearly coming, first and foremost, out of a rock bag with Latin and funk elements. Herbie's Headhunters were jazz players bringing that sensibility to a funk bag. It's not a question of perfection, the level of improvisation, nuance, and command of harmony is not even in the same ballpark; or, should I say, fruit bowl. So, you like apples more than bananas; no problem there. But, better? Not in my kitchen :-) BTW, this is THE live version of that Santana tune; amazing time in music history: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AqZceAQSJvc |
To the extent that affection for someone can be experienced via dialogue (?) on a forum such as this, Rok, I admit to a sense of it towards your passion for music; I have said so on several occasions. I have "met" few individuals on these forums with the passion that you demonstrate for an admittedly fairly narrow slice of the musical landscape. That would be perfectly fine, but the main obstacle to having reasonable dialogue, debate, whatever we want to call it is that you don't let that very passion for that music stand on it's own. It's like the old saying: "let her go, if it was meant to be, she'll be back (or something like that)". The music that you so love does not need so much of your "protection". Not only does it not need it (as if your "protection" mattered one iota, anyway) it narrows your own horizons and, ironically, violates some of the important tenets of that very music: open mindedness, creativity, forward-looking attitude, evolution, growth, honor the past but always look to the future; THAT is what jazz is. It has been pointed out to you on several occasions that the very musicians that you idolize would look down at the attitude that you demonstrate sometimes. Doesn't that say something to you? Why the arrogance of opinion that you demonstrate? Time and time again you make proclamations about this or that being "better" or "worse", or at worse making comments like those you just made to Acman3 that are totally uncalled for and insulting. He has made some really great contributions to this thread and and deserves better than that. I would respectfully suggest that an apology is in order.
I remember a comment that you made early on in this thread that has always stuck with me; something to the effect that somehow it was inconceivable that someone with a different opinion from yours might "have some insight into music that you don't". Why is that so inconceivable to you? You are severely limiting yourself by not being open to the idea that some may, in fact, have certain insights that you don't. Again, those very musicians that you revere will be the first to tell you that the very reason they got to the point of being worthy of reverence is that they were humble in their knowledge that there is always a lot to learn, and that there are many that do have insights that they didn't. So, I encourage you to take a deep breath, calm down and don't blow an opportunity to grow as a music lover and there is a great deal to learn; a little humility is always a good thing.
Having said all that, Wynton is not God, and I will dare to criticize him. He is a great instrumentalist and a great ambassador for jazz; but he has added little to the evolution of jazz. His undeniable and great contribution is of the "museum" type. "Layla" with Clapton? Please, are you serious? I would respectfully suggest that you are letting your admiration for the man and everything that he represents influence your perception of his musical relevance.
So, I would suggest that everyone take a deep breath, understand that it is the very passion that we feel for music that causes us to act irrationally (I include myself), and get back to the business of sharing great music and hopefully growing in the process.
In the hope that we will be able to do that, I will post what was going to be my next post before I read some of the above. |
Acman3:
Well if you and The Frogman and O-10 and Learsfool are kindred spirits, it would be more appropiate for me to go. I admit to having a mental block when it comes to Free, Avant-garde and Fusion music. So being the disruptive force, and I admit to that, you stay. You have more to offer this thread than I do.
Apologies to our OP.
Cheers |
As far as the solo sounding repetative, I was mainly talking about Mr. Clapton, who was said to be god in the 60's, but now it seems Wynton is.
How can Wynton be the Alpha and Omega, when he is the 2nd or possibly 3rd best Marsalis in his family?
I like Wynton Marsalis's writing, but did you compare him to Ellington in any way? Really?
I salute and give all respect due for the good he does in the world.
Which freakish wannabe's are we talking about, I have played a lot of those?
Rokid, It is very hard to carry on a conversation with you. You are a bully to anyone in disagreement with you. Heck your a bully when people are mostly in agreement with you, and you take it wrong. If I wanted abuse I would go talk to my wife.
O-10, I have enjoyed your company. You are a gentleman. I listen to mostly the same music as all of you, but because you all had the straight ahead taken care of I chose to bring out the different side of Jazz. I hope it wasn't to much of a distraction.
Frogman and Learfool, Thanks, and see you around. |
|
When I went to the clips of Marsalis and Clapton, off to the side I saw these:
Wynton playing in dubai, an islamic country. A line of children waiting to talk and get pointers on playing / music from him. He was showing a girl how to place the mouthpiece and explaining the embouchure
Wynton driving a crowd crazy in Chile
Wynto playing, with Marcus Roberts, for little children for a kids tv show
Wynton playing baroque music
Wynton on the Charlie Rose show speaking to the country on Jazz
Wynton at Lincoln Center, leading the best, and most important Jazz Band on the planet.
He could be considered the Ellington of this era.
How dare you people criticize him, while you praise freakish looking wannabes, making obnoxious, non-sensical noises.
Cheers |
Rok, "Slow Freight", by Ray Bryant has become one of my favorite tunes. I grew up a half block away from a railroad track where slow freights miles long crossed, I know what it's like to have to wait for a slow freight.
This isn't music, it's a portrait; you have a wino whose route to his appointed destination, has been blocked by a slow freight. (slow freights don't cross in the swanky parts of town) Ray Bryant's music is going through his head while he's waiting for this "slow Freight" to cross, which has a slow blues beat, and while he's waiting, he just happens to have a bottle of "joy" to swig on.
Music that can paint a picture is a rare thing, and it seems the only tunes that have that quality, came out in the 50's and 60's.
Enjoy the music.
|
****but did I hear those solo's a hundred times before?****
Only if you have seen the clip a hundred times before. He is the Alpha and Omega of Jazz today. And can play, at the highest level, in ANY genre. Don't like it? Too Bad.
Cheers |
Jazz has been a fusion of Blues and Gospel from the beginning. I like the pieces you showed of Wynton with EC. but did I hear those solo's a hundred times before? As Mingus said to Jackie Mclean, " Play something new, Bird already played that!"
We are just looking for different things in our musical experience. The good thing is we can easily coexist, I can see the best in almost all music, but what led me to Jazz from Blues/ Rock was the way two pieces played on different days by the same person will always be different, and two pieces played by different people may not even sound like the same music. The way they play with or against each other, how they use instrument tones and shades to compliment or contrast, or the way they play with or against time on a standard, and sometimes do all three at the same time fascinates me. A song you have heard a hundred times is new.
Wynton's music feels like a comfy blanket, and as always He does have a great band.
BTW, the complete 7 CD output of Woody Shaw's Muse recordings are available from Mosaic Records. |
Acman3:
This is Real Fusion! Notice how easily Blues and Gospel can be FUSED with Jazz. Esp with a Master doing the arrangements.
The solos on 'Layla', wow! And the Trumpet and Clarinet playing on 'Just a closer walk with thee', if you aren't screaming, there is something wrong somewhere.
O-10: That's Ali Jackson on drums.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1koHhFv9IS4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A91pY1L9meQ
Cheers |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xncznvkB7S8
Cheers
|
O-10:
Is that Nica's Bentley on the WAR album cover?
Cheers |
The Herbie Hancock music reminded me of this, And I LOVE this! Got me thru ther 70's. Along with EW&F. This is better than the Hancock piece. Of course Hancock is more than just one clip. Hell, I have him playing Handel!
Back in the day, When I cranked up the WAR piece on my JBL L-150s WOW!
Music is not about Perfection!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBJa6rKgy3g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVfa-n_zYSo
Cheers |
You know you love it.
At 2:44 she leaves Carnegie Hall and goes to church. Watch her hands and head movement.
I love this woman!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbIAEKQ7GmY
Cheers |
Frogman, Loved the Herbie! I had a problem with Herbie's Rokit stage, but I was more like Rok in his thinking at the time. Only straight ahead, mostly hard bop. The 70's. This is what I was listening to. A gateway drug, so to speak. One of the best fusion records of all time. A definite love or hate recording. It passes Roks crowd test. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3sT5Ucyw_0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YShQZUMe7g |
Frogman, that was absolutely spectacular; the tambourine lady provided a visual intensity that can not be duplicated on CD. I would have given anything to have been there, continue the 70's.
Enjoy the music.
|
Today being saturday, I thought I would give Bop and Classical a rest and stroll down memory lane. A little Motown and oldies but goodies.
Happened across this:
Quincy Jones -- BACK ON THE BLOCK
I remembered it had a good rap tune with Ice-T.(a masterpiece, by rap standards) And also a version of Birdland, which I liked.
While listening I looked thru the booklet for the first time. I was stunned! Here are some of the people ivolved in this thing:
Ella, Ray Charles, Miles, Dizzy, Sarah, Mcferrin, George Benson and god knows who else. Amazing! Outrage!!
They even included recorded voice of Lester Young! Damn! Even the dead aren't safe from these people.
But, the reason I am posting is to show what I think is the danger of electronic instruments in Music and esp Jazz.
The players are credited with the usual things, vocals, sax, trumpet etc.... here are a few new, to me, ones:
synthesizer programming
kick and snare drum sounds
keyboards (no more piano)
synthesizer arrangement
rhythm arrangement
herbie hancock, synthesizer pads and M1 pads
synthesizer strings arranged and composed by...
M1 programming
WTF??? Mount up regulators!! Ride to the sound of the 'drum sounds'!
It's called a slippery slope.
Cheers
I think it's a good CD. Had to be, it's Quincy! |
Great clip. Reminded of my days in the Fatherland, back in the 70's. I thought I was back in the Mexicana Bar in Frankfurt. :) Those were the days!
Some more hip bass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkcHSgfDdkI
Cheers |
|
Wrong clip, sorry/ will post shortly. |
Some thoughts about electric instruments: one may prefer the sound of acoustic instruments, but players choose to use electric or acoustic piano and bass not because one kind is intrinsically superior to the other. They are different animals altogether with not only different sounds but different response and feel which place different demands on the player; which, in turn, opens different avenues of expression. The player makes a judgment call as to which is more appropriate for the style of music. It's not a coincidence that Herbie Hancock. Chick Corea, Deodato and many others chose the Fender Rhodes piano. That sound in a way defined the 70's and I disagree that the music would be better served with an acoustic piano. It's almost like saying "I prefer the sound of the bass clarinet to that of the tenor saxophone, why didn't Coltrane use the bass clarinet instead?" ; after all, they are both single reed woodwinds in Bb and have the same range. O-10 mentioned Weather Report one of the greatest bands from this period. Joe Zawinul was a founder and key member, and later formed his "Syndicate". Check out the electric bass sound on this clip; can't do this on the acoustic bass. The rhythm section is on fire. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q6SbaYPU2LA |
Since I listen to music all over the place every day, covering two time periods in jazz is no problem.
Enjoy the music. |
The Frogman:
Chick Corea -- LIGHT AS A FEATHER
The album from which your clip of 'Spain' was taken.
Corea is a lot of things, but noise maker is not one of them. We are in agreement already. And I hope we can agree that the singer should be banned from ever recording again.
'Spain' is for sure the best track on the CD. I just don't get the need for the electronic stuff. It takes some getting used to, and I don't see the improvement or advantage over the acoustic stuff. Farrell was a welcomed presence.
Visualize for a moment: All the well known great piano players in the history of Jazz. Now, visualze them sitting in front of some electonic thing with several keyboards in front of them. The Duke? Bud Powell?
Now visualize all the great Bass players. Now try to see them with a bass guitar around their necks! Mingus? Really!
The very thought of such a thing is absurd!
But Corea is a great musician. After all, I bought this one, and several more.
The main problem with electronic instruments is that you can get close and actually cross the line between music and 'sound effects'. Note the 'wah-wah' at the end of 'Spain', and in the title track also.
Good album. Would have been better with Steinway and upright acoustic bass.
Cheers |
O-10:
Pithecanthropus Erectus: With a title like that, and coming from our OP, I thought it best to define terms!:) Walking upright. Got it!
For those of you that want to listen to modern, progressive and cutting edge Jazz, you need go no further than Mingus. He can go to the far reaches, and NEVER LEAVE JAZZ. To me, that is his greatest. No hypen needed or required.
The liner notes on this CD are great. Again the music and it's intentions are explained by Mingus himself. Nat Hentoff gives his thoughts also, but who better than Mingus himself to expalin his music.
The title track is my favorite. There is something about it that rises above the usual Jazz tune. I wish I had the words to explain it, but I am glad I have the ears to hear it.
I recall the CD 'Art Pepper meets the Rhythm section'. A great set. Pepper playing with the Miles Davis rhythm section. They never rehearsed! Met for the first time the day they cut the record. You just know that would not and could not, ever happen with a Mingus set. He demanded more than just blowing, and he got more.
I remember when I was in college, a friend, who introduced me to Mingus' music, made a comment about the strict and high standards he set for his players. How true. That is the hallmark of his records, Playing at the highest level. No blowing sessions.
Calling him a Jazz player, is like calling Einstein a Physicist. It's true, but totally inadequate.
O-10 thanks for reminding us.
Cheers |
Now that we have thoroughly covered the 50's and 60's, it's time to move into the 70's. Miles ushered in the 70's with "Bitches Brew". I saw him live with that same group before the album came out, and fortunately I was with some guys from New York (they seem to know everything about new music) because the experience was the same as turning up a bottle of whiskey, and tasting wine; this was not the Miles I expected to hear. Head Hunters, and Weather Report were two groups that impressed me with this new music. Although we try to communicate music with words, it's impossible; the only thing that can be communicated is how this music affected or impressed "you", and that's the only person you can speak with any authority for. "Sextant" was the Herbie Hancock album that impressed me, it really blew me away; I even liked the cover art. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk0L3RXYxS0Weather Report, "I Sing The Body Electric" was the first album I acquired by that group, it took me to another world; the music was not of this universe, it took me someplace I've never been before, and I liked it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBMLhDw1xOw Frogman, both "Oregon" and Chick Corea are well represented in my collection. Enjoy the music. |
|
The Frogman:
ahahahahahahah I have to laugh out loud. This is getting to be ridiculous.
I will try again.
We were having a conversation in which you offered a definition of Jazz. A definition that I have absolutely no problem with!!
Before you stated the definition, you made a comment about people saying things like, "I know it when I hear it", and Implied that that was too easy. Sort of like a cop-out.
In respoding to your post, I attempted to show that a piece of music could meet your written definition of Jazz, and NOT BE JAZZ! That's what I meant, when I stated that, hearing it being of the upmost importance. (know it when you hear it).
The point of the bluegrass piece was to show that this was an example of such a piece of music.
I play it often and have always felt it had a lot of Jazz elements in it. I said it COULD meet your definition.
You said it does have improvisation, but does not meet the definition due to the lack of complexity and sophistication of the music, and interaction between the players. I said that these qualities could be a matter of degree or opinion. i.e. maybe the bluegrass players consider their music fairly complex etc....
I did not say, or mean to imply that the bluegrass piece was Jazz, just to show, that a written definition, no matter how well constructed, cannot be the final answer.
The music must be HEARD! Or maybe in the case of a pro, looked at on paper.
The Hancock piece. I listened to it again. At least 12 minutes of it. 12 minutes I will never get back.
The dynamic range thingy. Don't stoop to 'gotcha' audiophile techniques. You knew what I meant.
I think I didn't like it because of the electronic keyboards and the electric bass. And that mind-numbing repetition of the rhythm section.
It does not sound muffled, bad word, it sounded like what I said, Booker T. No disrepect to Booker T. Memphis Soul. Stax. I love music, but I got tired of listening to it. Maybe it got better later on. I will concede that possibility. I am sure his shoes were appropiate to the music being played. Maybe some horns joined later.
Music genres with hypenated names is used to create new catagories or new genres of established music genres, so that the noise makers can play. And get awards. And make money.
We really have no disagreement.
I will now go into Chief Joseph Mode, and fight no more, forever.
Cheers |
|
Rok, I'm trying, really trying.
****You cannot state 'your' definition of Jazz, and then have a discussion with others, using 'your' definition as a given fact. What you found lacking in the bluegrass piece, even by 'your' definition, was a matter of degree, judgement or opinion.****
Sigh! OK, here we go again. I'll explain point by point:
First of all, point out to me, please, where I used my definition "as a given fact?. Now, you posted a Bluegrass clip and stated:
****I think this clip could meet your definition.****
YOU alluded to MY definition, and made an assumption based on YOUR interpretation of MY definition. I disagreed with the premise of that assumption; you misunderstood my definition or don't understand the relevance of it to the clip you posted. Moreover, I graciously qualified the use of my own definition in my comments about the clip by stating: "My definition (FOR WHATEVER THAT IS WORTH)". Again, kindly explain how any of this constitutes claiming that my definition is "a given fact".
****What you found lacking in the bluegrass piece.....****
OK, do I really need to spell this one out? Fine. Not only did I say that I love Bluegrass, I clearly stated:
++++This is not a criticism; simply the nature of the music.++++
I found nothing lacking in the Bluegrass piece, and made it clear. It is Bluegrass; it is not a rhythmically nor harmonically sophisticated music. It is not supposed to be, and to try to make it so would make it lose part of what makes it good; I hope you can understand that.
****even by 'your' definition, was a matter of degree, judgement or opinion.****
OK, I already pointed out that I found nothing lacking. Nonetheless, let's look at the points that I made in the comparisons of Bluegrass to more rhythmically and harmonically advanced musics. "A matter of judgement or opinion"? Nope, not so. Here is where the subjectivist's argument falls apart. If you understand harmony and rhythm (from more than just a rudimentary standpoint) it's easy to understand this distinction. This is not a matter of opinion. We've been here before, and why there is such an aversion to accepting this is beyond me.
OK, you thought that Herbie's music had no dynamic range. OK, fine. So what? Is that the only thing you can say about it? Do you honestly mean to tell me that the amazing grooves and fabulous solos (especially Herbie's) don't deserve acknowledgement?
****The music was muffled because it had no dynamic range. The difference between the highest and lowest notes.****
Huh?! Please explain what on earth the "difference between the highest and lowest notes" have to do with dynamic range.
Herbie Mann?!? I like Herbie Mann, but as a comparison to The Headhunters? I am speechless....
****Whenever I see the name of a so-called genre with a hypen, I always ask, why is that needed?****
Why not? Isn't this talking-point getting a little old. Of course there are countless examples of music with hyphenated genre names; so what? There are plenty of examples of great music in these hyphenated genres; just as there are plenty of examples of lame music with non-hyphenated names (the steak analogy). I urge you to understand the irony in your insistence on this stance. You love a music that is, first and foremost, about spontaneity, change, forward-looking attitudes, open-mindedness, and much more. The real question should be: why does one need to be so protective of "the name". To quote O-10:
"Rok, I've got more than one concept.
Enjoy the music." |
You cannot state 'your' definition of Jazz, and then have a discussion with others, using 'your' definition as a given fact. What you found lacking in the bluegrass piece, even by 'your' definition, was a matter of degree, judgement or opinion.
The Herbie Hancock piece was not 'muffled' due to the quality of the recording. The music was muffled because it had no dynamic range. The difference between the highest and lowest notes. Booker T and the MG's come to mind. Maybe Herbie Mann? That type stuff. Memphis Soul. Not James Brown as you mentioned.
The music landscape is littered with musicians who possessed the following attitudes: 'understanding' their music or 'getting it' was solely the job and responsibilty of the listener. "take it or leave it". "You don't understand what I'm saying? Well that is just a reflection of your lack of musical understanding" etc......
I would name them, but they are unknown.:)
Bet you can find them on every street corner in NYC. If the artist does not connect with the audience, HE/SHE has a problem! Just a variation of 'the customer is always right'!
Whenever I see the name of a so-called genre with a hypen, I always ask, why is that needed?
Other than these small and insignificate differences, we are in total agreement.
Cheers |
****but a person has to be able to know it when they hear it. Think about it. ****
Only if the person cares about attaching a definition of genre to the music as opposed to caring mainly about wether the music speaks to him/her as being good music or bad; that was the whole point of my post. It is not the music's responsibility to scream at the listener what it is. Growth as a listener (if that is a goal to the particular listener) happens when there is a willingness to learn more and more about the art so as to become a more discerning listener.
I love Bluegrass! It is fun, and can groove and even swing. Thanks for the clip.
****I think this clip could meet your definition.****
Not at all. Good Bluegrass has only one of the ingredients in my definition (for whatever THAT is worth): improvisation. But, "a high level of interaction between the players, and a high level of rhythmic and harmonic sophistication in that interaction" ? No way! The rhythmic interplay is simplistic with a simple "1,2,3,4" feel, and harmonically very "inside" with very basic harmony. This is not a criticism; simply the nature of the music.
I agree that the recording quality of the Herbie Hancock clip leaves something to be desired; there is some audible distortion but I certainly wouldn't call it muffled. Regardless, I find it more than acceptable and I am not concerned with the quality of the recorded sound (as long as it is acceptable) as much as the quality of the music and in that regard it absolutely burns.
****I think they are better examples of the this type music.****
I would love to hear them. Please share.
Thanks for the comments. |
Rok, that bluegrass reminded me when I visited the Clampetts in the hills of Beverly, I'll tell you about it sometime.
|
I found the herbie hancock music lacking in dynamic range. Sounded 'muffled'. I think they are better examples of the this type music. Too long also. It has to have that dynamic contrast.
Just one member of the unwashed masses opinion. :)
Cheers |
Music Lovers:
A Great song! All you folks from down home will surely appreciate it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdPGDBZdXuk
We don't need no stinking philharmonic!! Some proper acoustics maybe. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTd3ZsvqDiQ
Cheers |
I can't help it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLCuhwHuEvU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6UDEkqCPE4
Cheers |
The Frogman:
I understand your comments, but a person has to be able to know it when they hear it. Think about it.
I think this clip could meet your definition.
BTW, I love this stuff. I have the CD and the DVD. Highly recommended! Recorded at Fisk University in Nashville. Is it Jazz?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRi6yhqmuxU
Cheers |
O-10:
The Bush symphony was interesting. I call this 'video' music. It has no connection to the people in the images. It's designed to make the common seem sublime.
Same for the other piece. When I hear this type stuff, I think, Made up. Based on nothing. Requires a little weed to make a person think they appreciate it.
I will listen to 'Pithecanthropus Erectus' today to get refreshed. Report later.
Cheers |
And check out Herbie's shoes! |
Ok, so what IS jazz? Someone famous once said that if you have to ask you'll never know. Someone else said that he doesn't know, but knows it when he hears it. Cop outs; and too easy! What this thread, now approaching 2000 posts, proves is that it is unlikely that there will be agreement about the definition. So what? Is not what really matters wether it is good music or not? We can get so hung up on the definition that we miss the forest for the trees. To use an analogy: I think that one thing that most can agree on is that a premium aged sirloin steak is superior to even the best hamburger. But, not every steak is superior to a good burger; you can have a pretty crappy steak which makes a good burger a much better, and delicious, choice. Sometimes music lovers fall into a comfort zone based on genre and dismiss other genres to the extent that they are tolerant of inferior music making simply because it happens to be in their preferred genre; while, at the same time, dismissing great music making simply because it is in a genre deemed inferior. O-10 has made two posts recently that IMHO are particularly important to the evolution of this thread. In one was a comment about not yet exploring the '70's; the other was the Deodato clips. Not because I think those clips are particularly worthy, but because they introduce a genre that merits much more attention. Funk-jazz, electric-jazz, fusion-jazz; whatever one wants to call it. Again, what exactly IS jazz? To me, and hard to dispute, jazz is music in which key elements are improvisation, a high level of interaction between the players, and a high level of rhythmic and harmonic sophistication in that interaction. For me, classical music does not meet ALL those criteria, neither does rock; pop certainly doesn't. So ..... This meets all those criteria, and laid the ground work for Deodato and countless others. Herbie Hancock's Headhunters was an amazing band; funky grooves on a par with those laid down by James Brown's band at their best combined with instrumental virtuosity and very advanced improvisational sophistication. It may not be like his work with Miles and Shorter, but every bit as hip. Mike Clark kills on drums (not bad for a white dude in this kind of company), Benny Maupin is the antithesis of Michael Brecker, few notes but funky as hell; and Herbie, amazing. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mMcQfyuHVk8 |
Well Rok, since you started a conversation about someone who's worthy of a serious conversation, I'll continue. When I bought the LP "Pithecanthropus Erectus", I had no idea what the title meant or anything, other than the fact that it was a "Mingus" album.
At that time, I was working side by side with an anthropologist, we both were employed as aircraft electricians. (he took this temporary job while waiting for a dig). You can google "Pithecanthropus Erectus" if you would like to go into the detail my anthropologist co-worker took me through that afternoon. I mention this to give you an indication of just how deep a thinker Charles Mingus was.
If you want to hear Jackie McLean like you've never heard him before, this album is a must have. Mingus's creativity brings out things in other musicians they didn't even know they had. I bought every album I saw by Mingus, and I was never disappointed; each one was so unique, that they were simply different facets of the diamond we all know as "Charles Mingus".
Enjoy the music.
|
|
|
Well, to sum up: We have our OP dumping Bop for some guy named Neil Larsen, and having no problem with the Dixie Chicks headlining a Nawlins 'Jazz' fest, and The Frogman is Jamming with Tiny Tim! Ain't progress grand!!!
And you folks wonder why I am so paranoid when it comes to Jazz!!
Cheers |
