Hello all - I have been away from this board for several days, and may be for several more. I have read the conversation going on between O-10 and Frogman with great fascination. O-10, your latest statement, "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."; is incorrect. In fact, it is quite backwards - it is Frogman who is talking much more about what you are calling "composition," in other words, the music itself. You have been referring throughout to your subjective reality of your emotional response to the music. What Frogman's objective reality is about is the actual music itself - how it is put together, and how it works - much, much more than simply how the musicians are playing their instruments, though this is indeed one aspect of it.
The problem here, as someone else besides Frogman has alluded to (sorry don't remember who off the top of my head to give proper credit) is that unfortunately, you do not have some of the fundamental knowledge of music that is required to get into some of the deeper discussions that could be had about it. There are things about this objective reality that simply cannot be understood without this knowledge (this is why some of the things Frogman says seem subjective to you, when in fact they are not). This is precisely why I have urged you, O-10, in particular to educate yourself some more about the music you love so much - until you do, discussion is much more limited than it could be. It would open up whole new worlds of understanding and appreciation of everything that you already love about your music. Unfortunately, apparently not only do you not believe this, but even further, you seem to believe acquiring more knowledge to be totally incompatible with gaining more love; and this is by miles the single most frustrating thing for us musicians when we are trying to help you deepen your understanding, and therefore your love of music.
I'm a very mediocre writer compared to Frogman, but I hope the point comes across. I may be away from this board for a while again, but this is always the very first thread I check (in fact, pretty much the only one I check on this site anymore). It has been great, and I am sure will continue to be so. |
Alex, you express your thoughts very well; and I appreciate them. What we are talking about is a recurring theme on this thread. The appreciation of music is no different than just about any endeavor in as much as there are many many levels that a person can reach in the understanding of it. The choice to do that or not is obviously a very personal one. My feeling has always been that to learn as much as possible about it is a good thing which helps the appreciation and enjoyment of it. With all due respect, what I think you confuse, and is often confused in these "talks", is the distinction between quality of the performance and quality of the music as a style. Contrary to what you suggest, I like "simple" music as much as more complex music; the issue is wether it is played well or not. It is not that I dislike some of the clips that have been posted because they are "simple", I disliked them because they were not played well. Just this morning I was having a conversation with an orchestrator who was commenting how difficult it is to keep things (music) simple and good; sometimes complexity hides poor quality. Anyway, I think that this kind of critical thought is sorely missing on this thread, and the ability to be critical that way in no way detracts from the emotional enjoyment of it. There is much talk about favorite styles and there is much posturing about which era produced the best music; a futile exercise. IMO, the key to becoming a better listener is to learn about the musical values that separate a great performance from a mediocre one; regardless of style. This will, in turn, help the listener understand and appreciate different styles of music. That may or may not be what some listeners want. The problem as I see it is the declarations about the superiority of this player or that player, or this style or that style without substantive justification for those assertions other than it is what we prefer.
Bottom line: there is great music from all eras. To declare one superior to the other says more about the person making the declaration than about the music itself. IMO. |
Frogman, reasonable man can add very little to your and Learsf.last post. But, let me try, even if that may say more about me, making declarations, aldo I think it is just an clarification. IMHO, if you look at the history of any art, in each and every era you will find that art has some caracheristics which can be considered as strong points of that author, that style and finally that time.
Due to different reasons, there is always a different accent on what is considered as 'value or virtue' in some style and in certain time. So, I have taken the liberty to say that I certainly consider some era's superior than others,but I must add,in those aspects that I
value as important. Further more, if we would really want to establish what is 'good' or 'better' and why is it so, we should start a philosophical discussion on aesthetics and its ethics. I could not agree more with Learsfool who says that education is way to better understanding, but let me point to one other contradiction. When I say 'simple' that has different meaning to us. Yes, composition or melody may be simple, but if its executed right, you would like it. But, what if the composition is basic, playing of the key, and ability of musicians very limited, to say at least, and you still like it? Do you think that only an ignorant could like such 'music' or perhaps there is something in 'music' beyond craftmanship that can touch us in a 'mysterious ways' that cant be always just explained ? In this sense, I would not be so keen in dismissing O-10's perception of music as limited one, before we are sure that we covered all bases of the subject, and not only regarding jazz. |
****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 ****
No, no, no! O-10, with all due respect, either you don't read my posts in their entirety or the chasm between our realities is even greater than thought. No one has commented more on the compositional aspects of the music, and their importance, than I have. I think that at the root of the disagreement is the tendency to be absolutist about these issues. Iow, because I mention that "how well the musician blows the horn" is important, then that is perceived as the only consideration if it fits the agenda. That is a very simplistic, not to mention inaccurate stance.
****Frogman, on the issue of "Subjective Reality" I insist that we not agree to disagree, but come to a definitive conclusion****
I must say that I find a conspicuous irony in all of this; and which, a cynic might say, is nothing more than disingenuousness. What I mean is this:
The adherent to the subjective reality idea claims to want an all-inclusive view of reality; iow, everyone's reality is equally valid. Putting aside the folly of the insistence on the dismissal of long-held standards by which performance quality is judged, a person would think that this more "liberal" stance would be tolerant of other viewpoints (realities). Moreover, the subjectivist puts up far more rigid preconditions for liking or not liking something; for instance, "composition is everything", "I don't like short clipped phrases", etc. By contrast, the advocate of the more "conservative" objective reality idea is not only willing to "agree to disagree", and has acknowledged that the subjectivist finds value in his chosen approach, he encourages the appreciation of ALL styles of music and playing. However, the subjectivist cannot allow room for the other reality and insists on "coming to a definitive conclusion". For me, the contradiction is obvious.
O-10, I am not quite sure how you propose we come to "a definitive conclusion". It may come as a surprise to you, but I have little interest in coming to a definitive conclusion; and, not because it is obvious that it won't be possible. More importantly, I acknowledge your reality and my only interest is in pointing out that there is a different reality that some may or may not find is the path to deeper appreciation of the music. I will say it again, with respect, we will have to agree to disagree. Well, I will.
Regards. |
Alex, that was a fantastic post and very well stated; I agree with every word of it. I won't repeat some of what I posted in response to O-10, but it addresses some of your points. I think the main obstacle here is the defensiveness that, while being a very natural human reaction (especially when it concerns something we love), can blind us to the entirety of what the other person is saying. With respect, it is the defensive person who would use labels like "ignorant" in the context of a discussion such as this. When have I said anything of the sort to O-10? As I said to O-10, there is a contradiction in the idea that one camp can be at liberty to be critical ("that is not jazz", "I didn't like this or that", "this is the best era" etc.) in a way that goes counter to another's viewpoint, but when it is pointed out that a performance is subpar and, importantly, precise reasons why are given, all hell breaks loose.
**** what if the composition is basic, playing of the key, and ability of musicians very limited, to say at least, and you still like it? Do you think that only an ignorant could like such 'music' or perhaps there is something in 'music' beyond craftmanship that can touch us in a 'mysterious ways' that cant be always just explained ?
As concerns my comments about O-10's recent post "Chan Chan", which I found fault with, please note that I said "there is obviously something that resonates with you in that performance". It seems you are suggesting that there is no room for criticism of music that someone likes; a silly idea imo. Most importantly, what then is the point of a discussion and, as O-10 himself proposed in his original post, "review" of the music? If someone likes a performance that is off-key and shows a low level of craft, that's fine with me; but, am I not at liberty to state why I don't like it? I think we all need to be comfortable in our own skins and be willing to accept different viewpoints. |
Chazro, killer band and killer record! Adventurous and intensely creative record from one of the greatest minds (and heart; just in case :-) in jazz. Love it. |
Frogman, believe it or not, we have reached an agreement and come to a definitive conclusion in regard to "subjective" and "objective" realities; it's concealed in your last post; rest well.
Enjoy the music.
|
"Aficionados" and devotees of the 50's and 60's; I just got an album you should have if you don't already have it. Just when I thought I had every thing in those two decades worth having, I discover that I don't, and that's the beauty of it. I don't think of vocals as "must haves" ; consequently I'm probably missing quite a few, but anything, and everything by Clifford Brown, Clark Terry, Harold Land, Richie Powell, Max Roach, and George Morrow when they were at the top of their game, is a must; "Dinah Jams", has all of them and more.
Enjoy the music.
|
Chazro, listening to it now, it is an amazing recording. |
Frpgman has made some more excellent posts - I would add only one thing in response to O-10's latest post about subjectivity and his example of 30 different people seeing 30 different things when looking at the same object. No one is denying this. However, what I said and what Frogman has been saying is also true - each of these 30 people will have different levels of knowledge about the said object, and can impart this knowledge to others, who then will have a much better frame of reference to look at the object more objectively and less subjectively, when they take a second look, and a third, and a fourth, etc. This will always be true, even if they have looked at the object 500 times. Especially if we are talking about a great work of art. You can always learn more about the object looked at, and therefore appreciate and love the it more. I truly do not understand why anyone would not want to do this about something they love as much as you love jazz. The only thing you have to fear is fear itself.... |
Learsfool, thanks for the great posts. All bias aside, you did a great job of summarizing what I have been trying to say; you shouldn't underestimate your writing skills.
Regards. |
O-10, I am glad you arrived at a definitive conclusion for yourself. Since it is "concealed" in my last post (presumably, you mean last post directed at you), are you going to give me a clue......? :-) |
One of my favorite congeros, and one who gained prominence in the 80s is Poncho Sanchez. To my ears, a distinctive approach to Latin-Jazz fusion; a "fusion" which hasn't been looked at much so far: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GcYwjio8E-M |
Congueros!! Now we're talkin' my language!;) Poncho Sanchez is a direct link to the great Cal Tjader. He played with him and continues to this day playing that West Coast style of Latin Soul Jazz. The late Clare Fischer also was an alumni of Cal Tjader who very much kept that 'Tjader' style going after Cal passed away. One thing though, I wouldn't ever categorize Sanchez' music as Latin Fusion. I can easily rattle off lists of recordings that can be categorized as such, but Poncho wouldn't be on any of those lists! The best, most intense, and a personal favorite would be the American debut live record from the Cuban supergroup; Irakere. Of course, the marquee players in that band were Chucho Valdes, Arturo Sandoval, & Paquito D'Rivera but every member of that band was a monsta! I own so many records by most of the members of Irakere! VAYA!!!;) |
Chazro, you are, of course, correct about the use of the term "Fusion". Notice I didn't capitalize "fusion" along with Latin-Jazz and used the term to mean "marriage". I know exactly what you mean and agree it's best to not use the term loosely. One of the things that I have always found interesting about Poncho's records is that the horn players are guys who come mainly out of the jazz tradition. Gary Foster, one of my favorite LA reed players is often featured. Not a criticism at all, and a generalization to be sure, but the horn sections on his records tend to have a less aggressive sound than Latino horn sections, and the blowing tends to have a more fluid feel. I think this works very well with the band's rhythmic vibe. This is not a criticism of either Latino or non-Latino horn players, just an acknowledgment of a generally different approach to playing that gives the music a different feeling or flavor and is one of the many subtle musical choices a band leader makes that makes listeners react one way or another to certain music without the listener necessarily being consciously aware of it. |
I read Bob Parlocha passed on the 15th, age 76.
Feels like a friend has died. |
Schubert, I share your sentiments. When I listened to him on the radio, I felt as though he was a friend sharing his knowledge of the music we love, he had such a comforting voice.
|
Amen, O-10, AMEN.
He will be in heavy rotation in my prayers for a long time. |
|
Sorry to hear about Mr Parlocha. Unfortunately, I did not know his work. On a related vein, I would highly recommend WBGO 88.3 FM or on line out of Newark, NJ. Fantastic station with some very personable and highly knowledgable hosts. |
Frogman - Cool video of Irakere. My one caveat would be that by 1986 D'Rivera & Sandoval had already defected and by this time the band, while by no means abandoning their Jazz roots, had largely become a dance band. They became one of the pioneers of what was later to be known as 'Timba' (Cuban 'Salsa' music would be the easiest and quickest way to describe it). The album I referred to was released in 1979. Here's an interesting track from it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ma59D5iBoQ
And here's the entire record. Warning! - this is NOT easy-listening! A total antithesis of the Poncho Sanchez gringo-friendly sound! But there was a reason there was such a heavy buzz about them at the time. Dizzy Gillespie in particular championed their cause! Recorded at the Montreux fests in NY & Europe. If you listen to the audience, they're really into it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7KMJ_dTawI |
It was always a real treat to catch Bob Parlocha's show on my morning drive to the gym. Not only did he have vast knowledge of jazz, but we was also humble and teachable ... especially when it came to sharing music from young up-and-comers. Definitely a sad day when we lost him. |
|
Chazro, thanks for the nice post. The links don't seem to work on my IPad, but I know that 1979 American debut album well. I posted that post-defection clip to stay with the 80s theme. I became aware of Irakere even before that 1979 Columbia release, when the year before a relative in Cuba sent me copies of "Grupo Irakere" and "Brouwer/Irakere" on the Cuban label "Areito". I was knocked out when I heard that band. To me one of the great poetic ironies about the history of that band is that the musical project created by the Cuban government, the "Orquesta Cubana De Musica Moderna", in order to show the world that jazz was not forbidden in Cuba (anymore) and which spawned "Irakere", would eventually lead to the defection of two of its highest profile players. |
Rok, I know you're out there! I want you and other aficionados to know that I'm "studiously" adding to my collection, and economy of purchases is of the utmost importance.
Before, when I tried to stay current, it turned out to be a big waste; current musicians seem to capable of only one very good cut per album; this meant the rest of the album was a waste.
Acquiring almost everything by any one musician also proved to be uneconomical; that's because even the greatest had some flops; however, I've discovered one musician this might not apply to, Lee Morgan is his name.
Not until I began adding his albums did I discover that maybe it is possible for a musician not to have a bad album; I'm not talking about anything he was a sideman on, but the albums he put out and led.
In the past there was no way of sampling every cut on an album before you bought it, but now, thanks to "you tube", it's possible to sample other cuts beside the one that made you decide to purchase this particular album.
While in Lee Morgan's case, this only goes for the genre "Hard Bop", that still covers a lot of territory, and adds a lot of music without waste. This aficionado is on his way to Nirvana; that's Heaven to the uninitiated.
Enjoy the music.
|
O-10, as I said recently, I sense that this thread is at a milestone of sorts; perhaps, and more accurately, a crossroad (for me, at least). I preface my comments out of respect for you and the interesting and positive contribution you have made as OP, and so that my opposing view does not come across as gratuitous or disingenuous; it is not and is sincere. As always, comments in a thread such as this are obviously subject to and invite opposing as well as supporting views. Having said all that, it is I who would be disingenuous if I didn't respond to this: ****Before, when I tried to stay current, it turned out to be a big waste; current musicians seem to capable of only onte very good cut per album; this meant the rest of the album was a waste.**** Please clarify: Are you saying that "before" (previous search?), you didn't find any current recordings that had more than one good cut, but now you do? Or, are you saying that you just don't find (now or before) any current recordings with more than one good cut? If the latter, it is precisely comments like that, that I hoped that this thread could move beyond. Clearly, we are all entitled to our opinions and to express them; but, for me, the seemingly endless cycle of talk about jazz from the past as the end-all, to proposals to explore more modern jazz (sometimes by the decade) without real follow-through, to the inevitable return to negativity about current jazz gets really old. My view, if it isn't clear already, is that if important comments like that are made they should be accompanied by something more substantive than a simple statement of opinion or gut feeling as an explanation for it so as to keep a kind of focus to the proceedings here; perhaps specific examples, and better yet, with specific commentary. Here's one, just off the top of my head; not a bad cut on the record: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-rv_AU_URkk&list=PL55B2954EFC5BB029¶ms=OAFIAVgC&mode=NORMALJust one man's opinion, and a humble attempt to keep the thread at a level befitting the seriousness of the music. As always, I welcome yor thoughts. Regards. |
Why do you think Jane Ira Bloom is not a big name in Jazz? I have a couple of her recordings and they are very good. Great tone and I personally like her ideas. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TqHyTdDGGYFrogman, you know I love Kurt Elling. I do need to keep up with his work better. Thanks! |
|
Of course, I meant "here she is PLAYING one of....." |
Comments Anyone? Beethoven’s Last Piano Sonata: Does it Anticipate Jazz? This epic Piano Sonata in C Minor, Opus 111, isn’t the last piano work Beethoven published (his staggering Diabelli Variations, Opus 120, arrived a bit later), but it’s his last piano work in the sonata form,........Jeremy Denk, among other contemporary pianists, has described elements of the second movement as “proto-jazz” and “boogie woogie.” Okay, point taken, but there’s so much more. -Nick Moy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ljq4MwzAboSpeaking os Sonatas, listened today to: Mozart -- THE VIOLIN SONATAS with Perlman and Barenboim. Ain't got it, git it. Cheers |
O-10:
You are right about all the 'Filler' on current day CDs. The increased time is difficult for a lot of players to fill with quality music.
Lee morgan? I thought I had all of his 'must-have' stuff, but "The Procrastinator" is currently in my CART, Along with the recommended, Dinah Washington's "DINAH JAMS". Thanks.
Cheers |
****Beethoven’s Last Piano Sonata: Does it Anticipate Jazz?****
In a matter of speaking; probably. More importantly, and important to this thread, a better way of looking at this is, as always, perspective. The facts have a way of always rising to the top; even if slowly:
Consider all the drama and resistance that was put up early in the life of this thread to the idea that jazz is NOT a "purely American" creation; that music, like all art, does not happen in a vacuum and is constantly evolving while being influenced and shaped by what came before it. Jazz is a melting pot of many different influences from different cultures and anyone interested can easily research this well established fact; or go back and read early posts here.
What does one suppose some boogie-woogie pianists played when learning to play the piano? Probably, and among other things, Beethoven sonatas. So, is it so far-fetched to think that a young future boogie woogie piano player, after playing and studying the second movement of the C Minor might think: "Hmmm, I wonder.....let me try this....!"
Welcome back, Rok. |
Rok, Jeremy Denk, and other contemporary pianists, have never heard of "parallel thinking" or "coincidence"; two pieces of music can sound similar in spots and have absolutely no relationship.
Just like people, music has a birth and people who caused it to be born; this means it also has a history. "African Americans" brought jazz into existence; I hope we can agree on that. While presently people from all over the globe contribute to that existence, it's birth and history can not be denied.
In regard to music in general, the same can be said for it; meaning that it has parents who represent that particular genre of music. There are songs that you can not hear unless you have sang them; I said that in reference to the "blues", no I'm not referring to the "Delta Blues" which is quite specific, but the Blues in general. I made that statement so you can relate to where I'm coming from; the same applies all around the globe; unless you are from where the music is from, you can't hear it to the depth and degree of someone who is.
Jazz is a highly "subjective" and abstract art form that was closely related to gospel and blues during it's early years. Presently, after so many contributions, it's lost definition (according to me). Presently, the music I like, I choose not to define if it's current, meaning in the last decade or so; it just falls under two classes; like and don't like.
Since music is related to the people who brought it into existence, I find it quite difficult to believe there can be any relationship between jazz and classical; other than they're both genres of music; after all, classical was born in Europe, and we know where jazz was born. When you go back to birth and existence, there can not possibly be two more unrelated genres of music; consequently, there can be no such thing as "proto-jazz" in reference to classical music.
Enjoy the music.
|
Sometimes the 'connections' or 'influences' we make are extremely tenuous. You can reach a point where we can say all music was influenced by the first human that ever hummed a sound. He/she created notes and phrases., without having any possible concept of music.
O-10's point of view, seems to me, to be the most correct one, with a few exceptions. Such as:
****Presently, after so many contributions, it's lost definition (according to me).*****
We will agree to disagree on all this 'contributions' stuff. A person cannot make a 'contribution' to Jazz, with something that you cannot define as Jazz. Let's be generous, and just say, they made a contribution to 'music'.
BTW, I had no opinion on the piece I posted. Just thought it would create discussion. But I did not 'hear' the boogie woogie. I was listening for 'Pine Top' :). And, after all, the piece did not come from Mt Horeb.
Good points by all.
Cheers |
BTW, the article came from the 'Mosaic Records' site.
cheers |
****I find it quite difficult to believe there can be any relationship between jazz and classical; other than they're both genres of music****
O-10, kindly explain where, then, the concepts of harmony used in jazz came from if not the European Classical music tradition. African music has practically no tradition of complex harmony to speak of; it's contribution to jazz is in the realm of rhythm.
****A person cannot make a 'contribution' to Jazz, with something that you cannot define as Jazz.****
We are talking about what led to the birth of what would be one known as jazz; and, as such, the contribution of the European classical tradition to jazz is huge.
****But I did not 'hear' the boogie woogie. ****
Jeremy Denk heard it. I heard it; loud and clear. Once again, how does the fact that a person can't hear it invalidate the fact that many others can? What is the most likely scenario: that the many that can are delusional; or, that the one that can't, simply....well....can't? |
Gentlemen, I have mentioned a few times now that I feel that this thread is at a crossroad; I had hoped, as I also said, that it would be more of a milestone. Well, it is a crossroad for me.
O-10, you are to be commended for starting this thread. It has often been enjoyable to share favorite recordings and discuss and share points of view. My participation has been an attempt to offer a certain perspective on the subjects being discussed that is, not only a personal and a musician's perspective, but one shared and espoused by practically all individuals who write about, teach, and perform the music itself. Unfortunately, the constant resistance to these points of view and insistence on opposing points of view that have no basis in the reality of all that comprises musicology strikes me as not only arrogant, but an exercise in simple petulance; particularly when all of it can be easily researched and better understood. Instead, personal "opinions" become the end-all without a healthy amount of questioning of the obvious: how can someone who has not studied and lived music, so easily, and with such a sense of authority, dismiss the opinions of those who have? Subjectivity may apply to liking or not liking a particular music or performance, but it does not apply to musicological or pedagogical considerations.
Why does it matter? Because music matters and deserves more respect via inquisitiveness and a higher level of interest in learning about it; or, at the very least, more open-mindedness.
It is for these reasons that I feel my participation has run its course and I will not be posting any longer; I don't see the point. Not that I should be so presumptuous to think that anyone should care wether I post or not; but, rather than disappear from the thread, I felt I owed all the participants an explanation. Sharing favorite recordings is fantastic; interesting and a great opportunity to add good music to one's collection. However, when things veer into the area of commentary, the commentary too often does not sustain the credibility and standards that I feel the music deserves.
I am sure we will cross paths again on some other thread and I wish everyone good listening. |
{A person cannot make a 'contribution' to Jazz, with something that you cannot define as Jazz.}
****We are talking about what led to the birth of what would be one known as jazz; and, as such, the contribution of the European classical tradition to jazz is huge.****
You seem to write a lot better than you can comprehend. I was responding to O-10's statements about how 'contributions' have changed the music beyond recognition. Today! Current music scene! Was not talking about the origin of the music.
[But I did not 'hear' the boogie woogie.]
***Jeremy Denk heard it. I heard it; loud and clear. Once again, how does the fact that a person can't hear it invalidate the fact that many others can? What is the most likely scenario: that the many that can are delusional; or, that the one that can't, simply....well....can't?***
I said I could not hear it. How did you jump to the conclusion that I thought that Invalidates any other person's opinion or ability? You have toooo much 'audiophile' in you.
You always jump to conclusions to satisfy your preconceived notions of other people. Ask 1000 people if they can hear boogie woogie, how many would answer, "yes, I can hear it"? Think about it. It's a Beethoven Sonata!!
You need to read the OP's original post. The purpose / intent of the thread.
Cheers |
Frogman, I wish that you reconsider your decision. Try not to take it so serious, lots of stuff that is said here is actually 'lost in translation', because of a form of this forum. Things are never written in 'real time', and there is a constant delay, plus, there is always a chance that 'tone'of some post could be missunderstood.On the other side, people from different sides of the world, 'talking' to each other, despite all above mentioned obstacles, about things that they love, that is almost a small wonder. Few times I thought how nice it would be to see you guys, all siting at the same table. I dont know nothing personaly about any of you, but I am certain that you would enjoy each others company 'in flesh'.So, please, once more, dont take it so hard. I am sure that the 'discussion' has its low points, but many more great ones. |
I'm glad you will stop posting on this thread, Frogman.
It was painful to see you butting you head against willful
and invincible ignorance.
May God Bless you during this Easter Season and beyond, you are a example of courage to all. |
Rok, am I glad you're back; not only has Frogman been misinterpreting every thing I say, but he's been rewriting my posts, and coming up with something completely different from what I said originally.
If "present day jazz" is neither definable or clearly identifiable, then it has to be some kind of "mutation". It's often been stated that current musicians should simply drop the "jazz" title and come up with a new name, also they could specify; is it: Soul Jazz, Free Jazz, Acid Jazz, Kenny G. Jazz, Rock Jazz, Blue Grass Jazz, Latin Jazz, Brazilian Jazz, or jazz mixed with classical music, not to be confused with "Classic Jazz", which is Jazz Jazz.
Frogman, while I've enjoyed and appreciated your very informative posts, I think you should start a new thread specifying precisely what it is you're looking for. Not only would I post on it, but I would even research whatever it is you're looking for and trying to get across.
While I have appreciated your expertise as a professional musician, I have absolutely 100% no intentions of becoming one myself, and for Learsfool who seems to chime in on my refusal to learn the technical aspects of music, "I consider this ignorance BLISS", and I hope this closes that door permanently.
When you start your new Thread that spells out precisely what you're looking for, I will be the first to post on it.
Enjoy the music.
|
Alexatpos, the term "invincible ignorance" is a theological one.
It exists because at some point you continuing effort to show an ignorant person the light simply drives them ever deeper into ignorance at which point you duty is to simply cease and desist. |
****Frogman been misinterpreting every thing I say, but he's been rewriting my posts, and coming up with something completely different from what I said originally.*****
He is a Master of the Strawman.
Just ordered CDs by Morgan, Dinah, Ellington and Timmons. Will report when I get them.
Cheers |
Everyone put on some jazz + chill. 😎 |
Schubert, fate of enlightener is often ungreatful, but noble. You can call me naive or maybe romantic, but the sprit of this thread seemed to be positive,to me, not only because of thoughts and ideas that were shared, but also because behind of each 'nick' stood a person who actualy tried to share something that holds dear, to a bunch of complete strangers, somewhere in the virtual world, and many, many times that was succesful, to a equal pleasure of ones who had recomended something,and the ones who had learned something new. Sometimes process of education may be slow and hard, to both parties, but here I do not see the betrayal of principles, as the tread has grown and advanced, but maybe just a dispute about terms or maybe even some childlish stubbornness.I certainly do not see a reason to use such a 'hard' words if one wish to describe any participant on this thread. Despite the differences present, I had an ilusion that all participants share my previous thoghts, because they all continued to write, and such words are kind of surprise to me. I can understand Frogman, and all I can say is that I realy appreciate reading his posts, even if I did not liked some music that he has refered to. Hope he will continue to participate. |
To all Aficionados, I consider Frogman a highly educated and intelligent person, who has made great contributions to this thread; however, quite recently I seem to be speaking French and he only understands English, or vice versa.
If he is dissatisfied that I didn't follow through on exploring the 80's and continuing on into the present, I already told him that he could follow through, and I would support him. Let me give you my background on this in real time.
That was when I began buying records based on magazine reviews and wound up with many records on the ECM label that haven't been played for years. Recently, when I heard a tune on the radio, and bought the album, that was the only cut worth anything. There is no way I'm going to follow through on music I could very well live without; however, if he chooses to follow through I'll support him and give my "honest" opinion on artists and music.
Since we've already been through that "old" versus "new" music, and I made the discovery personally that I could live without most new music, and that seems to be the consensus on this thread, maybe a new thread that would attract younger readers might be the answer to his dilemma. Whatever the answer I'm willing to help him find it so that he can have peace of mind.
Enjoy the music.
|
O-10, Old vs New….
For me, the only consensus is that for old people, like us, the past was always better! It's not good or bad so please don't over react, it just seems to be.
Enjoy the music! |
Acman, "Old" is better than "New" is a judgmental statement; while I made many statements that "implied" this, I never made that statement.
I compare this to the colors of the rainbow, I like blue, others like red, and there are those who like the remaining colors. Is one color better than another? No, it's simply a matter of preference.
Currently, the record of the month in "Stereophile" is Sasha Matson; "Cooperstown: Jazz Opera In Nine Innings". Maybe you or others could review it, and give your opinion of this most current record.
Enjoy the music.
|
Today's Listen: Tuck & Patti -- TEARS OF JOY Recorded in 1988 This is a lot better than I remember it being. Played it last night in the dark. Nice. Patti can sing, and Tuck knows his way around the guitar. Just a duo, but they sound like a larger group. All the tunes are good. No filler here. Brought back many memories. The track 'Better than Anything', was like a time capsule, esp when she sings "better than an Emile Griffith fight". I just smiled at that one. Windham Hill recording. Excellent sound. The Time after Time clip shows how long they have been together. Not quite the Fox she once was, but the talent is still there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIVjCJ3jNDw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkOMDFNA5zoCheers |
Rok, I have many "Windham Hill" recordings and they are all of excellent audio quality. "Shadofax" is my favorite group on that label. Tuck and Patti were quite popular when they came on the scene. I'll see what I can find by them in my collection. Thanks for a nice contribution, I liked it.
Enjoy the music
|
