Good story O-10, and I particularly like your last sentence. As I have said before, for me to participate in a discussion there has to be clarity. I believe it was I that used the term "the reality", so I will respond to your comment about that. I believe that there is something that is closer to an objective reality than your comments suggest. Of course, this is highly influenced by our subjective reality, as your comments point out. This is the point at which intellect comes in and has to deal and exist with emotion as Schubert correctly pointed out. Case in point: sure, each blind man describes the elephant differently, but even the blind man should never lose sight of the reality that a sighted man may know what the elephant looks like and not be so quick to dismiss that viewpoint. But that is not really the issue here. You are correct, there has to be room for others' reality and that's where respect comes in. The real problem is when either the blind or sighted man describes the elephant with the tenor and attitude of: "you stupid fool, THIS is what it looks like and any other idea is bs. Moreover, I will go away until you silly people understand the TRUTH". To have to deal with that is not reasonable, IMO.
Jazz for aficionados
Jazz for aficionados
I'm going to review records in my collection, and you'll be able to decide if they're worthy of your collection. These records are what I consider "must haves" for any jazz aficionado, and would be found in their collections. I wont review any record that's not on CD, nor will I review any record if the CD is markedly inferior. Fortunately, I only found 1 case where the CD was markedly inferior to the record.
Our first album is "Moanin" by Art Blakey and The Jazz Messengers. We have Lee Morgan , trumpet; Benney Golson, tenor sax; Bobby Timmons, piano; Jymie merrit, bass; Art Blakey, drums.
The title tune "Moanin" is by Bobby Timmons, it conveys the emotion of the title like no other tune I've ever heard, even better than any words could ever convey. This music pictures a person whose down to his last nickel, and all he can do is "moan".
"Along Came Betty" is a tune by Benny Golson, it reminds me of a Betty I once knew. She was gorgeous with a jazzy personality, and she moved smooth and easy, just like this tune. Somebody find me a time machine! Maybe you knew a Betty.
While the rest of the music is just fine, those are my favorite tunes. Why don't you share your, "must have" jazz albums with us.
Enjoy the music.
I'm going to review records in my collection, and you'll be able to decide if they're worthy of your collection. These records are what I consider "must haves" for any jazz aficionado, and would be found in their collections. I wont review any record that's not on CD, nor will I review any record if the CD is markedly inferior. Fortunately, I only found 1 case where the CD was markedly inferior to the record.
Our first album is "Moanin" by Art Blakey and The Jazz Messengers. We have Lee Morgan , trumpet; Benney Golson, tenor sax; Bobby Timmons, piano; Jymie merrit, bass; Art Blakey, drums.
The title tune "Moanin" is by Bobby Timmons, it conveys the emotion of the title like no other tune I've ever heard, even better than any words could ever convey. This music pictures a person whose down to his last nickel, and all he can do is "moan".
"Along Came Betty" is a tune by Benny Golson, it reminds me of a Betty I once knew. She was gorgeous with a jazzy personality, and she moved smooth and easy, just like this tune. Somebody find me a time machine! Maybe you knew a Betty.
While the rest of the music is just fine, those are my favorite tunes. Why don't you share your, "must have" jazz albums with us.
Enjoy the music.
31,528 responses Add your response
Good story O-10, and I particularly like your last sentence. As I have said before, for me to participate in a discussion there has to be clarity. I believe it was I that used the term "the reality", so I will respond to your comment about that. I believe that there is something that is closer to an objective reality than your comments suggest. Of course, this is highly influenced by our subjective reality, as your comments point out. This is the point at which intellect comes in and has to deal and exist with emotion as Schubert correctly pointed out. Case in point: sure, each blind man describes the elephant differently, but even the blind man should never lose sight of the reality that a sighted man may know what the elephant looks like and not be so quick to dismiss that viewpoint. But that is not really the issue here. You are correct, there has to be room for others' reality and that's where respect comes in. The real problem is when either the blind or sighted man describes the elephant with the tenor and attitude of: "you stupid fool, THIS is what it looks like and any other idea is bs. Moreover, I will go away until you silly people understand the TRUTH". To have to deal with that is not reasonable, IMO. |
Check out the boogie babys, they can get down; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgXPl3XM_NA Enjoy the music. |
Frogman, even when you say "objective reality", whose objective reality are we referring to, and who is to be the final judge in regard to this reality. It's only in mathematics can we have one objective reality. There is no stranger reality than the one in which we live every day. I prefer the total unreality of the 60's when we didn't have to face reality. Unfortunately time is a reality that's totally inescapable, and it's finally caught up to many people including yours truly; but I'll still savor these final moments by enjoying good music, speaking of which, I think it's time to go into the 80's. Enjoy the music. |
I think fusion is where jazz lost it's definition. Before the 70's, when someone said "jazz", you knew what they were talking about, but after then, it could mean almost anything. Presently, the music that fits the jazz definition sounds like an imitation of the jazz of the 50's and 60's; something I'm not especially turned on by. Pat Metheney caught my ear after the 70's; his music was new, fresh, and kind of abstract, I liked it. Whether or not it was jazz, I couldn't care less; others can argue that point. "As Falls Wichita, So Falls Wichita Falls" was probably the first album I bought, this is quite abstract; in spots it's flat and dull, like the Missouri plains but for the most part it's interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwfVarzG1js "Offramp" was another album that caught my attention. "Are You Going With Me" and "Au lait" were two of my favorite cuts on this album. I don't know what you would call the dreamy and abstract "Au Lait", but I like it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh8bpl5KCPg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b0CHysDsjw Enjoy the music. |
O-10, it's really much simpler than that and it doesn't have to be personalized at all. It's not about WHO'S reality wins; it's not a contest. There may be some disagreement in some quarters, but when the vast majority of astute (or, at least, experienced) listeners agree on something, then I would say that constitues a "reality". At that point, the dissenting voice has two choices: 1. Disregard the consensus, or 2. Consider the possibility that there might be something to learn; that one is not seeing (hearing) all that there is to see. Personally, I think that 2. is an infinitely better option. Anyway, we will simply have to agree to disagree on this. Great clips. I have always liked Metheny's music. He is a wonderful musician. |
1980: (if this doesn't "fit the definition", then I don't know what does) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CGRQ6LtbBZk 1983: (why "fusion" doesn't have to be a dirty word) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PN8SAAMG8_o |
Huh? Why not? Please explain. My post was meant to highlight the band not just Brecker, and Steps Ahead was most certainly a fusion band. While I don't consider Wiki to be be definitive, look at their description of the band. More importantly, their music most definitely has strong rock, as well as jazz, elements. What, then, do you consider their music to be? Brecker, as well as being a fantastic straight ahead jazz player is considered the greatest of the fusion tenor players. Most importantly, I am very interested in why you don't consider Brecker a fusion player; after all Rok said he was and nothing more :-) |
O-10, no need for con-fusion; while a marriage of any two styles can be called a fusion, its probably wise to keep the term to mean jazz-rock fusion which is as most understand it. Frogman, I'm now confused more than ever? We can skip what Rok said, nothing I heard fits your definition of fusion. Enjoy the music. |
In case you don't remember the 80's, I'll give you a few names to get things started. George Adams was a passionate voice in Charles Mingus last band 1973 - 76. He can be heard on "Live At The Village Vanguard", tenor sax and flute. Some of the names from the 80's are: Steve Coleman, alto sax; Paquito D' Rivera, sax and clarinet; Stanley Jordan, guitar; Bobby McFerrin, vocalist; David Sanborn, alto sax; John Scofield, guitar, and the Yellowjackets, an instrumental group. Here's one that caught my ear by the "Yellowjackets". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiVk-SDy8cA These are just some names to help you get started, I'm sure you have favorites that you wish to add. Enjoy the music |
We missed Charlie Haden and Carla Bley during the earlier periods so here is a Great 80's album. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHEAXcfddfg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkaB48XoA6c |
O-10, I remember the 80's well; a lot of great music from that decade. I have always liked the Yellowjackets. I particularly like their work since the great Bob Mintzer replaced Mark Russo. Bob is one of the most talented individuals on the scene today; fantastic saxophone/multi reed player and composer/arranger who leads his own big band. I am still curious as to what you consider the music of Steps Ahead to be, if not fusion? What would you call the music of the Yellowjackets; also considered a fusion group? Here's an interesting comparison which points to the great influence that Steps Ahead had on the fusion scene. Here's your clip of the Yellow Jackets (with Mintzer) and recorded in 1987: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aiVk-SDy8cA 2 1/2 years earlier (1984) Steps Ahead had recorded this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sF9kW-8NPqs A little influence; maybe? :-) |
Acman3, great stuff! You're right, Mike Stern kills on that clip. I love his playing. One of the few fusion players who doesn't sanitize his tone too much and keeps some rock&roll rawness and attitude; combined with the improvisational sophistication of a jazz player. Had never heard Michael Urbaniak playing electronic wind instrument; didn't even know he did and knew him only as an electric violinist. Thanks. Michael Brecker on electronic wind instrument with Mike Stern (1987): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=opOUa1KcvBw |
Billy Bang was a "Nam vet" who never freed himself of the demons left by that war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVJMOpIHBgc |
Lighthouse Allstars. Back in 1955 & 1956 when I was in high school, a buddy of mine and I used to go to the Lighthouse jazz club in Hermosa Beach (California) a couple of nights a week to hear Howard Rumsey's Lighthouse Allstars. Rumsey on bass, Conti Candoli on trumpet, Bob Cooper on tenor, Bud Shank on alto, Claude Williamson on piano and Stan Levy on drums. I have all of their album and they are among my favorites. West Coast jazz at its very best. Cal Tjader is another favorite of mine. Personally, I think he was the best of the vibes players. I have a lot of Tjader's albums. Cannonball Adderley. Adderley always played with such inspiration. He literally makes the Miles Davis "Kind of Blue" album come alive. Until Cannonball takes the third solo on that album, it was, in my opinion, just another studio recording by guys who came to work that day to make a buck. Adderley showed them the way ... and as a result, this has become one of the best selling jazz album of all time, right up there with Bruebeck's "Time Out." Any Harold Land fans in here?? |
During the 80's I just collected good sounding music, that was classified as jazz although it didn't fit the classical definition of jazz; meaning to sound similar to the jazz of the 50's and 60's, but it was original. After that, the latest music out called "jazz" took on a similarity that was too much for me to take; it forsook all originality in order to be "jazz". It wasn't till quite recently, meaning since I started this thread that I began going back in time. Unlike Frogman and Acman, I absolutely do not like current music that sounds like 50's and 60's jazz; it sounds like someone trying to imitate the music of that era. Now, thanks to "you tube", I can go back in time and still get music that I've never heard before; that's because the giants of that era recorded so much more music besides what was most popular at that time. Although soon I will have all of the music recorded by the giants of that era, I won't run out because jazz is popular all around the globe; consequently it will be Burmese jazz, or Japanese jazz, but it'll still be new. Frogman, and some others seem to think or feel that musicians who go to the best schools, and progress to the point where they have developed the highest skill level on their chosen instrument, can exceed the jazz made by the giants of the 50's and 60's; but I don't believe they can. While that seems illogical, music is not a science with a mathematical preciseness, it's a lot more subjective than objective; for example, I say no one communicated abstract emotions through their music better than "Bobby Timmons", and this is what jazz is about; "communicating abstract emotions". Of course it's about a lot more than that, but that's at the top. Frogman says there is such a thing as "objective reality" involved in jazz, and I disagree, but if he and others that think like him could give an example of "objective reality" in regard to jazz, I could be persuaded to change. Enjoy the music. |
"There was a time, 40 yrs ago or more, when the music had an edge. It was possessed by a renegade spirit. There was an element of danger in it. It was taking risks, crossing boundaries, making discoveries. The musicians themselves didn't have a name for this hybrid sound. They just played with the prevailing attitude of "let's do something different". It was Cream meets Coltrane. It was Jimi jamming with Miles, jazzers discovering the power of Rock, rockers capturing spirit of jazz. It was called Fusion." - Bill Milkowski, from the liner notes of a record called 'Chroma - Music On The Edge' (an amazing Fusion recording from the 90's featuring R Brecker, D Chambers, B Berg, M Egan, M Stern, and others). It's an oversimplification to define Fusion simply as the combining of Jazz & Rock. Let's look at the 4 greatest Fusion bands; Mahavishnu Orchestra, Weather Report, Return To Forever, & The Headhunters. The one thing they have in common is Jazz chops mixed with Rock volume/dynamics. Mahavishnu and RTF both brought a heavy dose of Classical structure and voicings. RTF also brought a Spain/Spanish/Brazilian influence (the 1st RTF band practically invented the electro/Brazilian/Jazz genre!). Zawinul and Weather Report had this European/other worldly international sound, and of course, Hancock's Headhunters brought the Funk! I've always felt that a prerequisite for a successful Fusion band is that there be at least a few virtuoso gun-slingers in the band! If I were to add the bio's of the musicians in these bands you'd see an amazing degree of variety in their overall experiences and skillsets. When you FUSE all the info and influences together you start to have a rudimentary understanding in the roots of true Fusion. In great Fusion you can hear Jazz, Rock, Classical, Funk, Latin, Brazilian, European, virtuosity, spirituality, and very importantly, a sense of fun! You guys remember having fun listening to music? The visceral joy you'd feel at a Hendrixian power chord? Rockin' out!? I'm 61 yrs old and I still enjoy rockin' out. It never ceases to amaze me when I meet with friends from my youth who USED to be avid music-lovers who have somehow lost it as they got older, or their musical tastes have softened to the point that they think 'rockin' out' is somehow immature or childish. Not this old timer! Anyhow, just thought I'd throw this Fusion tidbit out there, there's SO much more I could add. Lastly, any attempt to categorize Michael Brecker as just a 'Fusion' player couldn't be more incorrect. Anyone that thinks this is simply revealing how little they truly know. My concern is that perhaps someone that ISN"T familiar with the subject matter will read some things on this thread and believe them to be fact when they couldn't be more wrong! |
****Until Cannonball takes the third solo on that album, it was, in my opinion, just another studio recording by guys who came to work that day to make a buck. Adderley showed them the way....**** Wow! That's the kind of bold comment that makes for an interesting thread. Welcome to the thread Oregonpapa. But, disagree with your comment; or, at least, in degree. I love Cannonball and that third solo is a great solo. But, Miles and Trane sounding like they are just there to make a buck? Yikes! First of all, Miles undoubtedly picked Trane and Cannonball because of their contrasting styles; so, from that standpoint, it's a bit of an apples and oranges situation. Moreover, I think a case can be made for Cannonball's style being somewhat ill suited for that record. To my ears, Cannonball's more traditional bebop style and overall exuberant and almost "perky" style is less suited to the very introspective and laid back vibe of that modal tune. But a great solo nonetheless. Again, welcome. |
Great post, Chazro; I agree with every word that you wrote. I especially like your last sentence; that is precisely the reason why I make a point of striving for clarity in the discussions. I also agree that describing fusion as simply a combination of jazz and rock is an oversimplification; unfortunately, for the sake being able to have any kind of reasonable discussion on this thread, simplification is precisely what is needed. My comment re what fusion is, and in the context of the discussion that was taking place at the time, was something like: "let's define it as a combination of jazz and rock, which is AS MOST PEOPLE KNOW IT". I believe that is an accurate, if unfortunate, fact. Michael Brecker was a giant as the various clips posted show, while not even scratching the surface of his greatness. A great loss when he passed recently. Please continue to post. |
Ronald Shannon Jackson Melvin Massey Vernon Reid Bruce Johnson http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7-6jo8mzdg Ronald Shannon Jackson Bill Laswell Sonny Sharrock Peter Brotzmann http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_nt7rOHA5c |
O-10, a lot to comment re your latest post. I don't understand what you mean by the recent posts by Acman3 and I sounding like music from the 50s and 60s; especially Acman3's. Take the recent Woody Shaw clips that I don't think received any commentary (perhaps that is an example of what you mean). Shaw was a player whose style sounds nothing like the players from the 50s and 60s. Please clarify. ****Frogman, and some others seem to think or feel that musicians who go to the best schools, and progress to the point where they have developed the highest skill level on their chosen instrument, can exceed the jazz made by the giants of the 50's and 60's; but I don't believe they can.**** I am afraid that is a gross mischaracterization of what I have said about the matter. I have never said anything about about new players "exceeding" the greats of from the 50s and 60s. My stance is and has always been that there are players today that have BUILT UPON the musical legacy of greats. Recent comments by me related to (I believe) Dave Liebman and Michael Brecker who built upon Coltrane's legacy and, yes, in some ways I guess one could say "exceeded" what was considered possible in improvisation during the 50s and 60s. There is nothing novel about this idea. It is the nature of the music (constant evolution) and not understanding this points to what Chazro pointed out: the misunderstanding, or, more accurately, lack of understanding of modern jazz; and, I would add, music in general. Re "schools": This subject keeps coming up. I believe the issue is not that I have ever said that recent players who have attended schools are superior jazz players BECAUSE they have attended schools; it would absurd to suggest that, and again, a mischaracterization as I never suggested that. What I have pointed out is there are some great players who happen to have attended schools and are worth listening to. There is a vibrant jazz education system that is producing some really great players. The real issue re this subject is the apparent bias in your and others' comments against players who HAVE attended schools. IOW, BECAUSE they have attended schools they are somehow necessarily inferior to the "street schooled" players; an absurd and ill informed idea. Re "objective reality": This one's a tough one. I am not sure how to address this one except that you yourself, and perhaps ironically, made the case for me. First with your comment: ****While that seems illogical, music is not a science with a mathematical preciseness, it's a lot more subjective than objective;**** Precisely. Well, at least you are allowing room for an objective reality, which was really what I was trying to say. Yes, at the end of the day, if a given listener likes something that another one does not, there's not much that can be said. However, there is actually a well known relationship between mathematics and its "preciseness" and music; and that's a fact. As concerns this discussion what I mean is this: Your recent Billy Bang post. Apparently you like it. I think that, at best, it's pleasant with a reasonably idiomatic feeling for an ethnic tune such as that. Ask most Cubans how they feel about that rendition of "Chan Chan" and they will tell you that it's barely mediocre. Is that not a reality of sorts? Now, Billy Bang's playing. I realize there may be something in his playing that resonates with you. I hear improvisation that is almost embarrassing with extremely rudimentary violin playing which is horribly out of tune. I assure you that as far as the violin playing goes that would be the reaction of the vast majority of violin players. Is that not also a reality of sorts? A person can insist that 2+2=5 till he's blue in the face, but that does not make it right. Regards. |
Jack DeJohnette,Lester Bowie with Abercrombie and Gomez. The theme is called 'Silver Hollow' from JDJ album 'New directions' from 1978. https://youtu.be/YVjX1EhNbLw I certainly like the 'old directions' more, but have this in my collection. I belleive that every music style reflects certain aspect of some particular moment in time, it represents it, or maybe it is a witness of time, like a architecture is. There are many different reasons that are creating the esthetics of some period, both economic and social, and aldo we have tendency to call that long stretch of music with a same name as 'jazz', there is no doubt in my mind that we are speaking about almost totaly different styles of music, that indeed share same roots, but still are different, like the architecture is, or mind frame of the people of anothere era, fashion or almost any other social or intellectual aspect is. For this reason every music era or style is basicly unrepatable and there is no point searching for it in later times, not there is sense in pointing in 'new' ones and think of them as a 'same but better' or 'evolved' thing. I belleive that classical music is much more clear on that subject, aldo with advantage of much longer time frame and those distinctions we can see or hear much bettter |
Frogman, as far as "Billy Bangs" is concerned, absolutely nothing you and your friends think is relevant; that's because it is "my" reality, subjective reality though it may be, it's still "my" reality, and that's why there can never be an "objective" reality in jazz. Your analogy of 2=2=5 is null and void; that's because you are using an "objective" analogy in reference to a "subjective" subject, which is jazz. Enjoy the music. |
Alex, I agree with you. I have no problem with anyone sticking to the wonderful musicians of the past. I am as big a fan as you, of them. I think of it as a river with many tributaries, YOU decide where you want to go, and where you want to stay. Another analogy might be the western expansion in the US, some set down roots and stayed to build cities and be shop owners, and others kept going west, to new open areas. It takes all kinds! |
Frogman, when you are alone in your "audiophile" listening room, playing an LP on your perfectly adjusted TT, with one of the best cartridges, basking in a holographic sound stage that makes your listening room seem like a space much larger than what it is, you are experiencing a "subjective reality". The average person sitting in your same sweet spot might not experience anything. I never mention anything about my rig to a non audiophile (who's in the listening room on a purely experimental basis) and they just go on babbling while the music is playing, never do I mention anything about the rig. "Subjective Reality" is what all audiophiles live everyday without even thinking about it. Enjoy the music. |
Alex, I agree with you entirely in that music reflects the time of its creation; the same can be said of any art. That is a very important point, and one to keep in mind when judging any music and it's value. We may not like a certain music, but what we are saying is often that we don't like what it is saying about the time. How well it reflects the time is what determines whether it is good or bad. What I don't agree with, if I understand your comments correctly, is the idea that music (art) does not evolve. Music evolves the same way as people and society evolves and good art reflects it. Had not been a Charlie Parker it is highly unlikely that there would have been a Coltrane. Nice post. |
O-10, these conversations are obviously limited by the nature of an on-line forum. Sometimes comments can come across as overly opinionated or even judgmental. To my way of thinking, participation in a forum like this presumes confidence on the part of participants in their own reality. You demonstrate that and I respect that fact. But, what does a dissenting voice do with the conflict created by their own and different reality? I hope we can all agree that as long as respect is shown, the voicing of that different opinion is appropriate. I must say, that the posture that a different reality is irrelevant to any given participant creates, imo, the kind of conflict that renders participation itself moot and irrelevant. To my way of thinking, if dialogue is not the goal, then what is.... aside from learning what others' like? Iow, I don't think that the goal should be for each of us to just show what good taste in music we each have, or to be told what good taste in music we all have. If we are not all prepared to hear about others' different reality or opinion what then is the point of all this. Your goal in starting this thread as stated in your OP was to "review" recordings, and presumably offer opinions of agreement and disagreement. My main issue with the discussions is when I express a point of view about a player (positive or negative) and offer precise reasons why I feel the way I do, and the disagreeing voice simply says "you're wrong" or "I disagree" or something along the lines of "well, it's just how I feel" and nothing more. I don't call that a discussion or dialogue. On the issue of objective/subjective reality we will simply have to agree to disagree. There are, in fact, many objective aspects of music making that determine for me and many others wether the music or the playing is good or not. Of course subjectivity plays a major role, but it is not the only factor. There is nothing "wrong" with not wanting objectivity to enter into our sphere of knowledge, but just as the other approach may render those opinions irrelevant to you, the subjective approach renders those opinions irrelevant; an unfortunate reality all the way around. |
Acman3, great clip of Woods and Harrell. As I know you are aware, Tom Harrell is one of the (relatively) unsung heroes of the modern jazz trumpet scene. I am particularly fond of his flugelhorn playing. Beautifully warm sound with fantastic time feel and harmonic creativity in both horns. For anyone who wants to get "geeky": since we have been talking about "fusion" and David Sanborn, it should be noted that John Purcell, the alto player in the Jack DeJohnette clip was Dave Sanborn's "sound consultant" for many years. If there is any interest, I can relate some pretty wild stories about that relationship. |
Wayne Shorter is one of the very greatest jazz musicians to have ever lived.; up there with the likes of Bird, Coltrane amd Miles in stature. Like Coltrane, Miles (an probably Bird, had he lived) his music was constantly evolving and moving in a new and different direction which reflected the times. He is undoubtedly one of the greatest jazz composers with compositions that are especially sophisticated and often complex; but never for the sake of complexity. One of the most fascinating aspects of his playing for me was how it became more and more economical through each successive stage. He has gone from a player that could burn it up with the best of them in a hard bop fast tempo, to one who (by choice) can say what he has to say with just a couple of well inflected and poignant notes. In the early 80s, after his time with and as co-founder of Weather a Report, he started his own "fusion" (there's that word again) band. "Atlantis" from that period is one of my favorite records from the 80s. To my ear he crafted tunes that struck a rare balance between sophistication via the use of counterpoint and complex meter changes, and being tuneful and catchy in an almost "pop" way. Excellent sounding also and a real audiophile sleeper. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H9z6-qehv4w https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z3qXILIfPuw |
Frogman, english is not my mothers tongue, that prevents me of a more complex explanations of my thoughts. Of course that music in time has a constant flow, and we can say that it has evolved, even more so if you have point of view from musicians stand point, like you do. But, imagine, if someone would look at society in general, in lets say late 50's,in some place where jazz was created, and than returned to the same place one decade later, I think one hardly could recognaise it. My points is that changes to music came with 'outer' factor,social and economic, which than impacted its protagonists on different ways and led them to create music that some express as their own artistic creative feeling, others maybe had the ability of craftmanship that allowed them to follow the 'fashion' of the moment. Maybe it is just my thoght, but 'older'jazz music seems to me to be more genuine, with clear thought and feeling behind it, like it had less influence from 'outside' but came from 'within', more it was 'musicians thing', rather than later music, which seems 'corrupted' by fashion, music industry, faster way of life, and other numerous soc.and econ.things. Also, if I may add something to your conversation with Orpheus, you two are looking things from two very different points. I admire your education, and your ability to articulate your thoghts and feelings into words, but sometimes your understanding of craftmanship that stands behind music creation, it just might you prevent to enjoy some more simple pieces of music, that are not necessary 'fake'. In that sense, O-10 seems to rely more on emotional receptors. Some music, Dizzy's session 1970 https://youtu.be/JjvbZEPmHdE |
O-10, I would have much preferred to engage in dialogue about Wayne Shorter and his music, but..... I THINK I understand what you are saying. Some thoughts: I have never sat an "average person" down in front of my system who didn't, at least, say "Wow, that sounds great"; that was after my asking them to choose the music. My system, while of a fairly high pedigree, is far from "perfectly" set up (by the standards of what is possible); I would rather put my energies elsewhere. It does sound pretty good, with the goal being for it to sound as much as possible like the way live music sounds with priorities being rhythm and timbre. Actually, soundstaging is probably it's main shortcoming with "space" that is actually smaller than real; but I get your point (dig). As far as the "subjective audiophile reality" goes: you are absolutely correct, but I have to say: so what and who cares? Most audiophile systems that I have heard don't sound the way that live music sounds to me; most, not even close; and many audiophiles don't have that as a goal, wanting their system to simply sound good to them. I have no problem with that. However, when an audiophile wants to make a case for why his system sounds "like live" or "accurate" or more "accurate" (like live music) than mine, AND can also tell me that he is a regular and frequent concert goer; THEN we can talk. Btw, what did you think of the Brecker/Ogerman "City Scapes" clip? Thought it might be right up your alley. Regards. |
Alex, nothing is more important than communicating the truth as you perceive it, and you do that quite well. Your perceptions are correct. From what I can gather about audiophiles since I've been here, is that they are very much unaware of things outside of that arena. "Cataclysmic" changes have occurred in the economy of this country since I was on the south side of Chicago in 56. Those changes have affected everything, including music. You are correct in your perceptions about the changes in society that are reflected by music. Once upon a time there were many places of entertainment that hired musicians, now there are relatively few when compared to times past, this means it's much harder for a musician to make a living; that and other factors account for radical changes in music over time. For whatever reasons, we are both in harmony in regard to the "jazz" of the 50's and 60's. Enjoy the music. |
Frogman, our problem in regard to the way we perceive "jazz" is becoming clear; to me, composition is every thing, to you it's how well the musician blows his horn. For example, Michael Brecker blows a beautiful horn, but I didn't care for the composition. In the case of Wayne Shorter, I don't like short clipped phrases (Miles liked short clipped phrases in his last music) While the Wayne Shorter clip was of the "definitive jazz" type, I've gone past that; now I'm more into music without classification, like this Santana for example; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bJouVEzr0k Enjoy the music. |
Frogman, on the issue of "Subjective Reality" I insist that we not agree to disagree, but come to a definitive conclusion. Subjective reality and how is it different from objective reality? Objective reality refers to the reality outside your mind (in the physical world) – the objects and events that make up the “raw data.” Subjective reality refers to the reality inside your mind. It is the meaning you assign to things and events. People see different things even if they are looking at the same object.All objects, dreams ideas and “truths” are different for each person. I’ve put “truths” in quotes because as you’ll see, “truth” is subjective! Essentially we all live in different worlds; we may have things in common with other people, but because of our background and our subjective interpretation of the world – our unique perspective – our world can be polar opposite from the person sitting next to us. The Perception Game Where you Imagine yourself and thirty of your friends and neighbors standing in a row, each person an arm’s length from the next and facing in the same direction. In front of everyone is an object, say a huge marble rectangle – a modern sculpture rising thirty feet into the sky. Everybody sees the rectangle. But they see it from a different perspective. One person may see a monolith because they are facing the broad side of the rectangle; to them, the sculpture is imposing and intimidating. The person next to them sees the same monolith but it is exciting because he is a mountain climber. Another, down the line, will see the corner between the broad side and the narrow side; to them, the sculpture may appear very interesting since the quality of light is different on each side of the sculpture. Another person sees only the narrow side of the rectangle and sees something absurdly tall, something that looks like it will topple easily. Tall people see the rectangle from a different angle than short people. Subjective reality: beauty or danger?Each person is 100% correct in what they perceive. But they don’t necessarily understand the points of view of anyone else in the line of people because NO ONE CAN SEE PRECISELY WHAT OTHERS SEE. Can you see how mind-blowing this is? The gray area between objective and subjective realities occurs when you assign a meaning to something that exists in your mind – such labeling your house as “beautiful.” When you start talking to other people about it you bring your subjective reality into the realm of the objective. If you believe something is beautiful, you will experience it as something beautiful. If someone believes your house is the ugliest thing ever built, their experience when seeing your home will not be pleasant. Each person’s experience depends on the meaning they assign to objective reality. This is how misunderstandings and differences of opinion occur. You may think “this house is beautiful” while another believes it’s the ugliest. In each person’s reality, the house is perceived differently. Some people will agree with you. In their experience, the house is beautiful. Other people won’t care one way or the other – in their subjective world, your house isn’t important enough to label. This is what’s meant by “beauty is in the eye of the beholder!” Beauty is a purely subjective concept. Enjoy the music. |