Alexatpos,
Very nice post. Dupree Bolton is a new one to me. Good player with a rather fiery musical vibe. Gildo Mahones I know from his work with Lambert, Hendricks and Ross. Another solid player who I believe is still active. Thanks for the contributions. |
Jazzbird (great handle), for that story alone I will have to check out the book. What TV viewers don't always realize is that sometimes the craziest, funniest and most interesting things happen behind the scenes, off- air. |
O-10, Rahsaan was a genius. Unfortunately, playing two or three instruments simultaneously was perceived as gimmicky by some. That clip demonstrates that he was a virtuoso instrumentalist by any standard; double and triple tonguing, circular breathing and command of the extreme ranges of the instrument. He had it all while still projecting a "let it all hang out" musical attitude. An extraordinary performance. Thanks! |
Acman3, fantastic clips! Why some insist that jazz needs saving is beyond me. There is an entire crop of young players pushing the boundaries while keeping the connection to the past and it augers well for the future of the music. At the very least it's proof that something is in the works and we will look back and see this as important transition period. Personally, I look forward to what is around the corner. Thanks for the clips. |
|
|
|
|
Frogman's little toe knows more about Jazz than I ever will, but as an outsider it seems jazz has ever greater players and a ever decreasing audience in the USA as a whole.
Minneapolis is among the most progressive of all American cities, believe it or not. the 24/7 jazz station here is owned by the Mpls. School Board.
Listening, its obviously an attempt to further the cause of jazz to the young black population of N. Mpls, I would guess as a counterpoint to hip-hop etc.
From what I can gather not having much luck. |
Schubert, Another case of the wide road and the narrow road and the results? ;)
Merry Christmas! |
Schubert, don't short change yourself; you are an astute listener. When I said that jazz doesn't need saving I meant it as a counter to the mistaken idea that quality jazz is not being produced by new young musicians; that the quality is dying. There will always be great new players and, as you point out the, players that are better than ever in some ways. The music will, of course, continue to evolve style-wise as it always has. The sad state of the size of audiences for jazz and higher art in general is a different matter. However, I don't agree that the audiences are ever-declining. There are many indications that, at the very least, the numbers have stabilized and there has actually been an increase over the last few years as well as other signs that are reason to feel positive about the future. Some interesting reading re the data: http://www.jazzartsgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/JAITicketBuyerStudy_ExecutiveSummary.pdfhttp://arts.gov/sites/default/files/NEA-Research-Report-31.pdf |
From your mouth to God's ear, Frogman.
Happy Christmas All ! |
To Jazz and Music lovers everywhere:
Merry Christmas to all, and to all, a Good Night!!
Cheers
|
O-10:
The Television series "Anthony Dourdain:Parts Unknown" is about a guy traveling the world exploring different foods. Christmas night, the show was about Mississippi and a second episode was about The Bronx, NYC.
I mention this because music was a major theme in both shows. He traveled to the black business area of Jackson. Also visited Oxford and the Delta. I discovered that Ellington, Basie and Calloway had all performed in the black area of Jackson back in the day. I had no idea.
The area is mostly deserted now. Ain't 'progress' grand? The main drag consists of a Church a Funeral home and one cafe. He also went to a few Juke Joints. That was a great thing to see. They are struggling to maintain the blues, but still jamming to the real thing.
He also ate at a place called "Doe's Steak house" in Greenville, Ms. It's right across the street from my Aunt's house. I have eaten there a few times. It has a certain amount of Fame. Was once mentioned on the 'Tonight Show'. The steaks are several inches thick and you can bring your own bottle. No veggies allowed!! Hot tamales were good also.
He also commented on the emptiness of the rural delta. He's right. Everyone has gone!
The Bronx:
Met the guy that started hip-hop 'music'. He is apparently a free man. I would have thought he would be in Rikers. He should be. Ate a lot of exotic food from the various immigrant communities.
Very depressing to my sensibilities. Gives a whole new meaning to phrase "The Bronx Zoo"!! The apartment complexes look like something out of the Eastern Block. Give me a shotgun shack in the delta anyday.
Anyway, they were both very interesting programs. Quite a contrast between the music scenes. If you get a chance, look for them.
After watching the Bronx program, I think I know what happened to Jazz. It was murdered by "Diversity".
Cheers |
Sad news this week. Buddy DeFranco passed away at the age of 91 this past Wednesday. A fantastic player he was the first clarinetist, and certainly more than anyone, to convincingly take the clarinet out of the "swing" mold and into bebop. https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=LmxHbHrpNHA |
|
|
Rok, this country has gone downhill all over; I lived in St. Louis city for over 30 years and I loved it. Now it's an insane asylum without walls, and I don't blame the inmates; they're doing whatever it takes to survive. Now I live in the burbs, but I got next to nothing for the house I enjoyed for over 30 years when I sold it. Unfortunately I know the reasons for this decline, and that makes it even worse; but don't blame us, they (Washington DC) run it while we run around in it.
Enjoy the music.
|
|
Maybe you jazzmen can help me out.
You are full of it comments are welcome.
I never liked to listen to Sinatra because it seemed to me that the band was always trying to keep up with him, as if it was their duty to pay homage to the King.
Not to mention I didn't much care for his voice.
I always loved to listen to Mel Torme because, to my ears, he sang like one of the instruments in the band, going so far as sing the overtones of an instrument in perfect pitch and time, something I never heard from anyone else.
To me Mel was a great artist, Frank a bad joke.
Honest comments will be appreciated,if I'm delusional say so. |
Not quite sure what you mean when you say 'the band was always trying to keep up with him'. Love him or hate him, Sinatra was a consummate singer with perfect time. That word 'prat' (pace, rhythm, & timing) that seems popular today seems to be tailor-made for Sinatra. Check out 'Live At The Sands' feat. the Count Basie Orchestra (Basie doesn't 'try to keep up';), if you can't find anything worth listening to on this record, than Frank'll never be your guy! |
Maybe this album could make you change your mind? http://youtu.be/WoZZ08S4eywMy favourite would be Dean Martin, he makes me smile, always, Nat King Cole is something special, or Elvis, the King, but I could not say that Sinatra cant sing.I have one album of Mel Torme, but could not put him in the same category.Have you listened Johnny Hartman or Lou Rawls? |
Frank was cooler than poor Mel.
Just received my best of torme on concord CDs. Less than $5 with shipping from Seattle goodwill via Amazon and arrived in less than a week. Nice. Looking forward to it. |
Schubert, while I am not actually the biggest Sinatra fan either, I don't think very many would agree that Mel Torme was much better. While he did have a pleasant voice, that was about as far as it went, IMO. I would certainly stop short of calling him a great artist. He may have had a great voice, but for me, what little I have heard of him, he hasn't ever seemed much more than a crooner. IOW, he wasn't ever doing any thing very difficult or taxing with it, so that is why it kept sound good for his lengthy career. Johnny Mathis is a different type of crooner entirely, but same sort of concept vocally speaking.
I would be interested to hear what Frogman and Rok and Orpheus have to say, however, perhaps they will think me off base on this one? |
Schubert, while I don't agree that Frank Sinatra was a bad joke, I don't think you are delusional nor full of it. I never cared much for Sinatra's musical persona but recognize why he is considered so great by so many. He had a very straightforward delivery of a song with little embellishment or vocal affectations and a fantastic sense of rhythm. I have always preferred the young Sinatra from the '40's, before his voice got so husky and "masculine"; and before his Vegas "baby" and "broads" persona took over along with the sense that he was doing the listener a favor by letting him/her hear him sing. This is clearly a subjective reaction, but it has been there for me in most of what he did from the '50s forward. I often found his singing simply joyless; unlike a singer like Tony Bennett or Mel Torme. Sinatra and Torme were two totally different types of singers, and while I would never say that Torme was "better" than Sinatra I am surprised that Learsfool considers him only a pleasant voice. Compared to singers of that generation, Torme could swing his ass off and was a true jazz singer who could scat like no other with the exception of Ella. I definitely understand your reaction to both Sinatra and Torme. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4vZlyfa28iQ |
I prefer early Sinatra as groggy describes as well. And yes dean Martin is the one of that bunch that most often makes me smile. |
Thanks guys, confirms what I thought.
Namely, that I downgrade performers more than most if I don't like their persona.
I won't even listen to Wagner because I loathe him as a person. |
Learsfool, my opinion in regard to Frank and Mel, is pretty much the same as yours; I don't get overly excited about either vocalist, but that goes for the majority of male vocalist.
Enjoy the music
|
Now Schubert I would only say this. Imagine, if you can, that you are a teenage girl and you and your girl friends are in the audience at the Paramount in the early 40's listening to your idol, Frank Sinatra swooning "Night and Day". Are you ever going to forget it? Would you care whether anyone else cares what is important to you?
Whether you like Sinatra or not for whatever reason one thing is undeniable, the man worked hard at his craft and promoted it by whatever means necessary. As time went by he became a better musician because of it and he has to at LEAST be given credit for that especially after all the obstacles he encountered, divorcing his wife and the disfavor of the public after that. Me? I think he has nothing more than an average range but is the master of phrasing musically and self promotion and delusion (of the masses) at worst. One can thank Dolly for that, but what are mother's for? Ask all those American Idol participants.
Sinatra is more than about his voice, it's about the American Dream, how even mediocrity can elevate itself to something special in it's own unique way. |
|
Tubegroover, your last paragraph is as true as true gets and EXACTLY why I dislike him.
Chasing the American Dream makes the American Nightmare.
P. S I don't have to imagine the Paramount in the 40's, I was in it then. |
Frogman, thanks for the link, I don't even know how to do it.
And he was an old man then. There was another clip on the right of Mel singing with his quartet decades earlier.
At one point his piano player gets slightly ,and I do mean SLIGHTLY , behind and Mel instantly synchs to him , It was so fast I had to watch it 4 times to be sure I was hearing what I saw.
IMO, Torme could constantly improvise without changing the intent , either in lyrics or tune, of the composer in a way I never heard anyone else do.
I fully understand why folks think of him as just another crooner. you have to listen to him as closely as you would a Mozart concerto to grasp just how great he was. |
"P. S I don't have to imagine the Paramount in the 40's, I was in it then."
Schubert I hear you, my father loathed him for exactly the same reasons you do and I certainly get the why of it but probably not to the same extent as someone who witnessed it first hand. The one thing I admire in Sinatra if little else, is his tenacity and belief in himself but conversely his pettyness. He was a very complex individual, generous on one hand, unforgiving and a bully on the other and I suppose this just adds into the equation of the enduring facination with his persona maybe even more so than his singing. I personally don't believe the two can be separate. If you take away the personality from the singer he, at least in my estimation, would have fizzed out long before his remarkable comeback. |
|
...'I downgrade performers more than most if I don't like their persona'...
...'I won't even listen to Wagner because I loathe him as a person'...
I am afraid that doing so, by not distingushing personalitys from their art, you are narrowing your choise, because, to say at least, there are so many artist who have been known as troubled individuals, if we are going to belleive to history books or to written observations from those who knew them. Among them quite a few jazzmen, painters, writers, film makers or actors. For exmp. Chet Baker, Salvador Dali, Caravaggio,Dostoyevski, Kusturica or John Wayne, just to name first ones that came to my mind.
|
Tubegroover, no wonder you turned out so well with such a brilliant dad ! |
As with most things of great value, music, the artists and their personalities can be very complicated; how and if that personality is reflected in the performance is equally complicated. With some artists their work is an open window into their personality while with some their work is paradoxically different. Coltrane was a deeply spiritual individual and this was clearly projected in his playing. Louis Armstrong was always jovial as an individual and I can think of no other player that could more easily put a smile on one's face by the way he played. Yet, you have a beautiful player like Stan Getz who was known to be a very difficult and abrasive individual and some would say a jerk; yet, his playing could be so gentle.
I think Sinatra was one of those performers whose personality was clearly reflected in their performance. Alexatpos, I also think that a distinction needs to be made between a difficult and unpleasant personality and a troubled one. You are correct, many great artists were/are troubled individuals. Some would say that is the reason they need to perform; as an outlet for their troubles. But a troubled personality is not necessarily an unpleasant one and just as we each react differently to a given performer's musical style, we each react differently to an individual's personality traits.
Schubert made what, at first, seemed like a pretty wild comparison: Mel Torme compared to a Mozart concerto; and, earlier, his dislike of Sinatra with a reference to Wagner. They are actually pretty apt comparisons and give me an insight into how he listens to music. Generalizations to be sure, and obvious issues of relative greatness aside, the music of Mozart can be characterized as uplifting, buoyant and lively and generally easy to listen to. I think that Mel Torme's singing style could easily be characterized the same way. Wagner was known to be an extremely controlling individual and perfectionist with a strong sense of self-importance; Sinatra has been often described the same way. I think that, wether we realize it or not, when we don't like an artist or his music we are sometimes reacting to that artist's individual persona. |
Alexatpos, what you say is so 99% of the time .
My refusal to listen to Wagner stems from being a serious student of German history and is shared by not a few Germans.He is the only composer I will not listen too.
Only actor I can not bear to watch is John Wayne, he was a draft dodger himself who I know, fact certain, played a large role in the deaths of untold numbers by glorifying war. I'm not the only combat vet he thinks so.
There are things that are beyond the pale. |
Frogman, just so.
What I meant was Mozart and Mel both make it sound easy and off the cuff , no sturm und drang, just music that is so beautifully crafted it never occurs to you could be any other way.
Every thing I say is a generalization and off the top of my head.
What is an open mind at 20 is an empty mind at 80. |
Off the top of one's head is good; like first impressions. |
John Wayne might be interpreted as "glorifying war" but I cannot find anything to indicate he was a draft dodger. To the contrary I read he sought entry to the Naval academy and was denied and was not draft eligible when Pearl Harbor happened due to age. Those with financial interest in him at the time might have actually provided some resistance but not Wayne himself. At least that's what I read who knows.
Hitler and the Nazis used Wagner's musical legacy for propoganda purposes but I think it is controversial at best whether or not his views were much different from much of the publics during his time.
One might easily argue that Wayne's persona and legacy was hijacked perhaps by others with agendas at various times over the years, but not sure I can blame him for that.
BEing controversial, I suppose one can easily draw their own conclusions based on life experience.
Agree totally with the Torme and Mozart comparison. Making enjoyable music seemed to be most effortless and natural for both.
I am not a huge fan of either, nor do I hold any unique grudges against those two. |
Wagner's views on Jews were worse than the KKK's views on blacks. He lit the fire for the gas chambers .
I am sure I can blame him for that.
As were the six German Historians who approved my thesis expressing that at the Free University of Berlin. |
Wagner was apparently controversial at a minimum in this regard based on various interpretations of his words, not based actions. So the case would not seem to be clear. I don't like his music much anyway so not a biggie for me. Many others did much worse. They weren't famous composers though. I can certainly understand how such things might affect ones musical preferences. How many artists are also saints though? I find it uplifting whenever one is able to create great or beautiful music. |
You're a great guy Mapman, but I think you studied logic and history under Goldilocks. |
Thanks but well my German history is admittedly lacking therefore my logic is probably out of ammunition right out of the gate. 😁
|
|
More likely my feeble mind can't get up to the lofty level your thoughts float at.
Happy New Year . |
Lots of interesting posts here lately, sorry I have not been able to respond sooner!
Frogman - clearly, I have not been listening to much Mel Torme. Your comments that he could swing his ass off and scat almost like Ella blew me away - I have never heard him do anything of the sort, and wouldn't have believed him capable of it, based on the little I have heard. Clearly, I am ignorant of much of his work, which I will remedy at some point (I haven't yet listened to your link - I'm actually in the process of figuring out setting up a new computer based audio chain for my digital listening).
Frogman's Sinatra comments are dead on for me - very well described.
Schubert - Wagner always sets off controversy - I am somewhat of an expert on the subject of Wagner, actually. Mapman is correct when he says Wagner was used for political purposes later by the Nazis, though you are also correct to say that his views are horrid - many people think he just hated the Jews, but he hated pretty much everything that wasn't German. These views are indeed despicable.
That said - there has been some interesting discussion here about an artist's personality influencing one's views of his/her work. Another of my favorites, from the literary world, James Joyce, believed very firmly in the total separation of the artist from his work (in this sense we are speaking of, that is). In the case of Wagner in particular (someone who Joyce was artistically heavily influenced by), this is an obvious necessity. I do understand why someone subjected to it in a death camp would never want to hear it again. I had many distant relatives die in more than one of those camps. However, as an artist, one simply cannot ignore Wagner. This is a man who I would (and have, formally) argue influenced music more than any other artist has ever influenced his or her art form. For decades afterwards, composers had very strong artistic reactions to what he did - music after Wagner fundamentally changed forever in many, many ways, splintering off in all kinds of directions, all of them in some way a reaction (positive or negative) to what he had done (and not in the way he himself predicted, either). It is only in the last few decades that this has not been true anymore. I must stop myself here, or I will type an insanely long post. I will conclude this one by imploring you and everyone else to give his art, his music, a chance. If you do not listen to Wagner, you are denying yourself some of the greatest and also some of the most beautiful music ever composed. As abhorrent a human being as he was, he was also undeniably an artist of the foremost rank and genius, matched by very, very few others, in any art form. |
Fantastic post, Learsfool. Your comments re Wagner and his amazing influence on the arts, not just music, are spot on. Thank you. |
|
