I was listening to "Star Eyes" from my computer play list, and thinking that's got to be the best version of that tune I've ever heard. (I'm not even close to the computer when I listen; consequently, I can't read who's playing) Try as I might, I couldn't place who was playing. Although it was led by the tenor man, (I've got a lot of them), "OK, I'll just listen and enjoy the music."
The more I heard this tune, the better I liked it; when a tenor sax man can make the words and meaning of a song come out as well as a vocalist, that's saying something. I once knew a "Star Eyes" with the most astounding, sparkling eyes I've ever seen, and her image flashed before me.
The piano that followed the tenor fit so perfectly, then the trumpet; "That sounds like Lee Morgan", now back to that singing sax which brings out this tune as well as any vocalist.
I discovered this was "Star Eyes" off my Mosaic LP compilation, Mosaic MR4-106, The Complete Blue Note Recordings of The Tina Brooks Quintets; Lee Morgan, trumpet; Sonny Clark, piano; Doug Watkins, bass; Art Blakey, drums, and it was recorded on March 16, 1958. That was the congregation on "Star Eyes"; these various groups Tina assembled consist of the very best jazz musicians of that time between 58 and 61. This compilation of records contains 4 well recorded LP's and two booklets. Rok, while this compilation isn't available on CD, "Star Eyes" is available on "Tina Brooks - Minor Move" CD.
Enjoy the music.
|
Learsfool, great comments and we have no fundamental disagreement. I love the Picasso/Stravinsky comment; perfect! Don't mean to go round in circles re Wynton; no question that he is an amazing musician. I think the difference of opinion is really a question of degree and where one personally draws the line crossing over to greatness. Again, time will tell if, fifty or one hundred years from now, jazz lovers will buy his recordings alongside those of Clifford and Miles; and if jazz students will be transcribing his solos. Which brings up an aspect of all this that is related to your other great comparison; Wynton/Strauss, and why I think we are drawing that line in different places. As you know (especially being a horn player), Strauss wrote not only some amazing horn parts, but some of the most beautiful, rapturous and almost impossibly gorgeous music. If ever I have a criticism of his music (especially when playing it) is that it is almost too much beauty. This is something that is difficult to put into words and is almost like eating two portions of some incredible dessert; incredible, but after a while you just have to put the fork down. No composer was better at prolonging a harmonic resolution. Because of this my favorite Strauss tends to be the shorter operas (Salome, Elektra) and his tone poems. Still, and in spite of all that beauty much of which, as you point out, is derivative I can hear just a few bars of even unfamiliar Strauss and know that it is Strauss; either because of the shape of the melodies or (usually) those wonderful chord voicings and the sudden and unexpected dissonances. Likewise, it is easy to know, after only a few bars of a solo, when it is Miles, or Morgan, or Hubbard playing; they all had clear and unique voices stylistically. I don't hear as much of that in Wynton's playing; but truth be told he can do a lot of things as a trumpet player that none of those other "greats" can even approach. He really is amazing. |
|
Hi Frogman - agree with you that Marsalis is more "derivative," though that is perhaps a little harsh. However, I would also say that he is one of the greatest jazz trumpeters ever. I guess this is what I meant by the Richard Strauss analogy. He ended up very conservative musically, but should this detract from his sheer ability as a composer? Should he be considered "lesser" because of this? I would say no. Same with Marsalis, for me. Just because he hasn't pushed the boundaries as much as some does not detract from his sheer ability and music making and personality and heart.
Right there with you on Stravinsky. He is in my personal top five, right along with Mozart. I had forgotten about that comment of Rok's, LOL! Stravinsky was the Picasso of music, for sure - meaning he was a musical chameleon, could do anything in any style with ridiculous ease. Those two were very close friends as well.
By the way Rok, I'm really not picking on you - I have been rightfully accused of the same sort of "attitude" on subjects I didn't know much about, so I kinda regret the attitude comment, but also kinda don't, as I see that which I complained about in myself as well. Attitude is not really the right word here anyway, I suppose, but I'm too tired to come up with a better right now. Peace. |
And BTW, that solo is a model of telling a story in a clear, logical, and concise way. Just a few bars, no excess, and gives a clear sense of direction; we KNOW he's going somewhere without knowing exactly where. It can stand on its own as a melody just as much as the melody of the song itself; and improvised on the spot. How do great jazz players do that?! That's art! And you know what? Does the great Phil Woods shun a pop tune by this young pop artist? No, the genre doesn't matter to a great musician, he recognizes a good tune with a good chord progression and is able to bring his best game even if outside his home turf. Gotta love it! |
Frogman, that's been one of my favorites since it came out; the words to that song offer so much insight into living with the opposite sex, and it's so beautiful. Phil Woods sax solo is fantastic, it made that song a hit.
Enjoy the music.
|
O-10, very good advise, and I do accept Rok as he is; that is why I am still here and continue to interact with him. I would only add that the same should apply to all. Rok, "retractions" cannot be demanded. I am not sure what exactly you want me to detract from my "first paragraph"; although I realize some of what I wrote is of a personal nature. Now, and maybe this will give you some insight into (as O-10 said) "who I am", and why your tone (often sarcastic), your rants , belligerence, and your sometimes insulting comments (like the ones directed at Acman3) set a certain tone in these discussions. Additionally, we are discussing subjects that are not simply "fun" (as you once said). I take these subjects very seriously and comments that you have made are every bit as much of a personal nature for me; the reasons why should be obvious. From my vantage point you don't own the comments that you make and are unwilling to see why, in the context of a discussion, saying something like "As usual the Frogman missed the boat" (just one that comes to mind) might, just might, cause ill will. Don't get me wrong, I don't need you approval on music matters; but it should be obvious why some of this can rub someone the wrong way. The truth is that you have a history of creating ill will on many of this forum's threads; not because "there are a lot of bullies out there", but because you don't practice what you preach: "words matter". So, I would encourage to think about your "style" a bit more; or at least be a little more conscious of how it affects those around you. Or not. As before I am willing to move on and go about the business of sharing and talking music; hopefully in a respectful way, disagreements and all. I don't expect, and certainly am not asking, you to change anything; we are all big boys. However, anyone who insists on simply ranting without much editorializing needs to be prepared for a reaction that may not be what one's liking. Peace. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xV8HT0Xb6q0Without a doubt, one of the greatest saxophone solos on a mainstream-pop hit record. By no one other than the great Phil Woods; even if he is "fat" as Rok is quick to point out to us :-) |
|
Recent Listens:
Ron Carter & Jim Hall -- TELEPHONE
Jimmy Smith -- BACK TO THE CHICKEN SHACK
Wynton Marsalis -- THE SPIRITUAL SIDE OF WYNTON MARSALIS
Freddie Hubbard -- READY FOR FREDDIE
Got Pleasure and Solace from them all. Carter and Hall was the surprise. Didn't think that combination of instruments in duet would work. It did!
Cheers |
Great post Learsfool. Except for your comments about my attitude, of course. But who is perfect among us?
If you don't know what to say or do, the Lord will always show the way.,
While watching the tennis matches last night, I was glancing thru the lastest copy of Gramophone. They have an ongoing article where prominent people in the Arts talk about their experiences with music and list music they could not live without.
This man is the director of a Museum in Oxford, England. His opening paragraph was this:
" In the matter of music, I am a true amateur. I love music, and it is in both the foreground and background of much of my life, but I do not read it(something I have always imagined for my retirement) or play an instrument (ditto). I simply get great pleasure and solace from music, "
Well said, and applies to the vast majority of music lovers.
Btw, the music he could not live without was:
MAHLER: 'Das Lied von der Erde' Vienna / Bruno Walter
One of my earliest classical purchases, but by Berlin / Giulini
Cheers
Frogman, where is the retraction? |
Accept everyone as they are; Rok is Rok, neither we nor Rok can change that, we just have to accept Rok as he is. Rok, don't change a hair for me, not if you care for me.
Enjoy the music.
|
Acman3, you are an "Audiophile", this hobby is an important part of your life, and the music being discussed is also important to you. This might be the only thread where people who like the same music as you, are discussing it.
When you go to the record store, who do you go there to please? Eliminate the negative, and accentuate the positive.
Enjoy the music.
|
A quick follow up to my comments re Wynton's jazz playing, albeit a very personal one subject to one's interpretation and usage of words: he often causes me to think (feel): WOW! Seldom, to say: AAH! (as in: aah! I get it, I hear what you're trying to say). However, when he speaks, and as Learsfool points out. and Rok has been saying, there is probably no better teacher. That does a great deal for the preservation of the art form, and to that extent I will concede, does a lot to promote the evolution of jazz. But, again, as a stylist, he is very derivative; unlike Miles, Shaw, Clifford, Morgan, and other greats. Those are the players that make me want to listen to their stories. But, man, can Wynton play the trumpet; amazing! |
Learsfool, thank you for you comments. I completely agree with everything you have said, and I don't think my comments said otherwise. Remember we were not talking about what Wynton "does for jazz"; I made my feelings clear calling him a great embassador for it, and I certainly made them clear re his trumpet playing skills ("he sounds fabulous"). Although, I would still argue that he has not added much to the evolution of jazz trumpet playing; stylistically, and the opinion of the overwhelming majority of jazz trumpeters I know. The discussion was a simple one, and the comments just as: who would we prefer to listen to? And why? And I also made it clear that he is "definitely worth listening to". On wether he is one of the greatest jazz trumpet players that has ever lived; which (going back to the discussion) is, ultimately, what would make ME choose to pull out one of his records instead of others. If that is what you are saying, I would have to respectfully disagree. As a trumpet player, he is a phenom. And, btw, it is also the majority opinion within the Jazz trumpet playing circles that I know. Still, I think you would agree the subject of Wynton was not the big-picture being discussed, but finding "the good in any genre". As an interested individual, I would much rather have Rok be able to appreciate the folly in his comment that Stravinsky ("20th century classical") is not worthy compared to Mozart (I am paraphrasing) "PERIOD", than my views about Wynton. Thanks as always for the excellent comments and contributions. |
Hello Rok and Frogman - I have been away from this board again for a few days, and just read your recent exchanges with great interest, especially since they concern one of my favorite jazz artists, Wynton. As a fellow professional musician, I agree with all of what Frogman says about Rok's attitude, etc. A long post I made on the subject (imploring someone who loves music so much to please learn more about it) a few weeks ago now was completely ignored, which was a very depressing experience for me. I just don't get how someone who is so passionate about music is so resistant to learning more about it. As Frogman says, Rok, the music will wash over you that much more, and your enjoyment of it will vastly increase if you take the time and effort to learn more about it.
However, on the subject of Wynton, while I must say right up front that Frogman has infinitely more authority on jazz than I - I do not pretend to have any knowledge/experience on the same level as he does, as he is truly an artist in both the classical and jazz worlds, and I am only in the classical world professionally - as a listener, I would still respectfully disagree with him on Wynton, and I would go so far as to say that I agree with Rok's comment that Wynton is doing more for jazz than anyone else right now, and it's not even close. I fully understand all of Frogman's "museum" comments (though I would argue that this is very important and necessary work), and I understand that you do not feel that he is as emotional as some other performers. There are many who agree with you on that. Frankly, this has always baffled me and many other fellow musicians, especially other brass players. There is certainly no question that he is a far better trumpet player than any other in the jazz world from a technical standpoint, but that is not really what we are talking about here, I hasten to add. We are talking about musical expression, and Wynton's musical expression is not always overt - it is often of a more subtle, introverted nature. For me this does not make it not as expressive - in fact, one could argue that it is more personal, in a way. It demands more focus and thought from the listener, and I do not consider this a bad thing. He is an experimenter, and not all of his experiments work. I happen to think his interpretations of standards are very relevant, and often as good or better than people before him, and I like much of his original experiments as well. My point, however, is not to argue with you, I know where you are coming from and respect your opinion, but to point out that the subject is arguable and is argued among musicians (your post reads like it implies otherwise). I liken him to Alfred Brendel in the classical piano world, another one of my personal favorites who nevertheless is very polarizing, and is often criticized in many of the same ways Wynton is. I might argue that Wynton is sort of the Richard Strauss of the jazz world, which I can't believe I just typed, but I'll let it stand. I think Frogman will know what I mean by it. I'm too tired, but...
The main reason I would argue that Wynton is doing more for jazz than anyone, though, has to do with his teaching ability, whatever our disagreement on his actual playing. I just caught an episode of that show where he is teaching some ARTS competition winners, and he is simply amazing at what he brings out of them, teaching them to listen to each other and play off each other, and give each other what is needed in the moment, never intruding his own opinions/style on them, but teaching them to be themselves, in the way only the best teachers know how to do - he was born to teach. It is guys like him that will keep jazz alive, in every sense of the word. I have very rarely seen something equally good in the classical world as far as a clinic in how to play and make music together with others, whatever you think of the actual ideas being explored at the time. It was a very inspiring program, and the brief clips from the concert were great. Brendel is the same way, by the way - an absolutely amazing and inspiring teacher. OK, I'll go to bed now. Sorry for the rambling late night randomness of some of this. Frogman is definitely a superior writer in these here forums. I'm out for now. |
We had been going back and forth about Fusion and Wynton, so this unwashed brain thought, HEY, with the internet and youtube, we can hear them both, almost side by side, and then we can each say which we liked best. And why?
This is not a test, just fun. I thought others might want to weigh in. BTW, You expounded on all the faults of Wynton, but failed to enlighten us on the brilliance of Weather Report. Slight oversight I'm sure. I was hoping our OP and Acman3 and Learsfool would state their preferences. But, no guts no glory.
The first paragraph of your post falls under what the shrinks call 'Projection'. Unless you can provide some when, where and who, I expect a retraction.
***** why, at the end of the day, I would much rather listen to others (Louis, Warren Vache) playing that style of music:******
OK. I have no problem with your personal taste or preferences.
****I will not repeat everything that I tried to share before about the pointlessness of that kind of comparison. Nonetheless, some comments about Wynton:****
Well, how about some comments about Weather Report!!
***Wynton sounds fabulous; beautiful warm trumpet sound, nice rhythmic feel, and excellent command of the vocabulary of that kind of jazz. Notice I said "sounds"; that is key.*****
I agree with your description. Well, 'sound' is the reason for attending concerts. That's what people come to hear, the sounds.
*****Notice how little silence there is in his solo; he has to fill up very beat, and there is a sense that he doesn't know quite know to end his solo; when to stop (sound familiar? :-)*****
I have read a billion reviews in my day. From Stereo Review, All Music Guide, Penguim, Gramophone, Audio Critic, BBC Music, Jazz Times, Downbeat, Internet sites like Amazon and every thing else I can get my hands on, some now defunct. And I have NEVER, NEVER, NEVER read where a player did not know how to end a solo. Maybe they blew a little long (coltrane) but this is a first!
And I wonder how many of the paying members of that audience left the hall saying, "he didn't seem to know how to end his solos" or "he didn't connect his dots very well"!! These things are important to YOU. The sound is important to most other people. And after all, it's HIS solo!
Several months ago, I was reading the reviews on Amazon of a piece of Music Composed by LvB, and played by Berlin / Karajan. One of his Symphonies I think.
Everyone ranting and raving. Five stars everywhere. The greatest thing since sliced bread.
EXCEPT, one reviewer. He said the recorded sound was great, the playing was great, BUT, "I am docking it one star, because I don't think Karajan really understands Beethoven"!!!! WTF!! I immediately looked at his name, thinking Furtwangler had arisen. Nope, just Joe Blow from Baltimore.
That is arrogance! Disagreeing with you, is not.
Cheers |
Since I've expressed my opinion countless times, countless ways in regard to Mr. Wynton Marsalis; if anyone cares to know, they can go back to pages 9, 10, 11 and 12; I do believe I've expressed my thoughts as thoroughly as I could think them, and they haven't changed.
Enjoy the music.
|
Rok, you are without a doubt (allowing for the vagaries of the printed word composed on line, of course) one of the most arrogant individuals that I have ever come across. Time and time again I show you the respect that you don't show others, by praising your passion for music while at the same time encouraging you ( and showing you how) to expand your horizons. You lash out, you insult and you posture about a subject about which you have, in the scheme of things, very limited and pedestrian knowledge and understanding; with nary even and occasional "hmmm, I don't quite see it that way, but let me think about it". One would think that offered the opinions of someone who has played music since age five, has spent years studying every aspect of it and has done nothing else professionally for forty years that a person would do at least that. Incredibly, you seem unaware of the path that you leave behind you at every turn, not just in this thread; while continuing to blame everyone except yourself for the garbage left behind. As far as this thread goes, you are, and have been looking at the proverbial gift horse in the face. Unfortunately, your admitted "blocks" apparently go well beyond the subjects of "fusion" and music in general. But, alas, musicians are born-teachers; psychologist is above my pay-grade, in spite of what O-10 may think :-) I may be "incorrigible" by your definition of the word, but man, you are out of your league and don't know it; or just like to keep stirring the pot (Mariah Carrey, Boys2men, seriously?)
Now the Wynton clip: "like it better than the WR". I am tempted to say:
"You're kidding, right?" Obviously, the last several posts have been a complete waste of time; too bad, for you, really. I will not repeat everything that I tried to share before about the pointlessness of that kind of comparison. Nonetheless, some comments about Wynton:
Wynton sounds fabulous; beautiful warm trumpet sound, nice rhythmic feel, and excellent command of the vocabulary of that kind of jazz. Notice I said "sounds"; that is key. Now, some insight about (to quote you) "the finer points of jazz" that may elude the "unwashed masses", and why, at the end of the day, I would much rather listen to others (Louis, Warren Vache) playing that style of music:
Notice how he plays phrases that are not tied together in a way that "tells a story from beginning to end", he doesn't have a "vision" (O-10) of the whole of his improvised composition. He says this, then this, then that. The great players always gave the listener a sense of the big picture of what they were saying; not in spurts. And when they did play "in spurts" they connected it all with the right SILENCE (this was one of miles' calling cards). Notice how little silence there is in his solo; he has to fill up very beat, and there is a sense that he doesn't know quite know to end his solo; when to stop (sound familiar? :-). Good command of vocabulary does not a great author make. |
*****I have no idea what a comparison between Weather Report and Wynton Marsalis' retro-jazz demonstrates or proves********
hahahahahhaha Frogman, you are incorrigible man!!
I bet you liked the Marsalis clip better!
Cheers |
The other six are available on the Tube and recommended. |
I have no idea what a comparison between Weather Report and Wynton Marsalis' retro-jazz demonstrates or proves; but, anyway, re the notion that only music from the 50's and 60's painting a picture: One of the great things about Wynton's LCO is some of the great individual talent in the band. One of the stars of the band is Ted Nash; one of the most talented individuals that I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with. This is his music; and it does precisely the above: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wftP__VvXig |
O-10:
You are spot on about it painting a picture. I have the album by the Ray Bryant trio entitled 'Slow Freight', but I cannot find it on CD. I do have Ray on a solo piano CD etitled 'Somewhere in France'. Slow freight is on this CD, but just solo piano.
I think this was the first Jazz LP I ever purchased. I still remember the cover art. Nice memory.
Cheers |
Some good'uns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu9RVPTpDyA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IA3ZvCkRkQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXxRyNvTPr8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi0RpNSELas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2VCwBzGdPM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3YjfMvWoOw
enjoy
Cheers |
Let the people choose.
Heavyweight Fusion Players
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07RN1Omm_YM
Backwards looking and playing wannabe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnpQZ_gGY68
I will leave it others to decide.
Cheers |
Aargh! I can try Spanish, but I don't think it would matter. Sorry for the sarcasm, but I don't understand what is unclear about what I am saying.
I did not say that we cannot judge art at a time other than the era when it was created. I said that we cannot remove the historical context or backdrop of the era during which it was created when judging it at a later time and that it is that backdrop that allows a superior example of that art. And of course the great artists represented their respective eras; that's the whole point, they always do. If we understand what was going in historically, socially and in other respects of life in a particular era, THEN we can judge wether the artist is doing a good job of reflecting that or not. That is, assuming we understand some basic things about music in general; if we are able to appreciate why Santana is nothing like Headhunters. It is a different social and political climate today, it is inspiring a different message. Anyway, look, you fight the message every step of the way, especially for someone who "considers himself the least informed on this thread". Or was that sarcasm or lip-service? if you still have to ask:
****why pick up Fusion, when Hubbard and Mingus are sitting on the same shelf. Makes sense based on my premise!****
then you really don't understand MY premise. A premise that, as much as I don't like to pull the "I am a musician" card, is shared by the vast majority of musicians; perhaps that may have some significance for you. So, I have tried every which way to explain that the point is that there are good examples of every genre; just as there are bad in every genre. If you really can't understand why I may want to, on any given day, listen to a good example of "fusion" as opposed to Mingus; or why regurgitated backwards-looking jazz may not be as appealing as Mingus on any given day then I don't think there is anywhere further to go with this discussion; for now.... |
******I remember a comment that you made early on in this thread that has always stuck with me; something to the effect that somehow it was inconceivable that someone with a different opinion from yours might "have some insight into music that you don't*******
I honestly do not remember ever saying this. Does not seem to be something I would say, because it does not make sense to me now. You may have me confused with some Audiophile. :) In the early days there were some of them on this thread.. But send it if you have it. I would love to see the context.
Cheers |
*****One cannot judge art outside of its rightful historical context. Why? Because art always reflects the times; it is the RESULT of the time during which it was created. How good a job art does of reflecting the times is, ultimately, what determines wether it is good art or not. THIS, WETHER WE LIKE THAT PARTICULAR ART OR NOT!!!!! And chances are that if we don't like the art of a particular era, what we are saying is that we don't like the era. That is why there is always good art in any era; there will always be good artists (it is part of the human condition) expressing their reflection of the era. Wether we like what that era stands for, is a different matter.*****
I am not sure I agree. We have often judged art and artist outside of their era. And still do. How many artist thru history died poor and unknown, but are now considered among the greatest ever. And sometimes the reverse is true. And I am not sure the great masters in Europe for example, painters and musicians, represented their era. That era was pretty bleak for the vast majority of Europeans. I guess they played, wrote and painted for the poeple with the MONEY to pay. :)
The MOST IMPORTANT part of any argument is the premise upon which it is based. I think this is the source of all our disagreements. You say the art of any era is important, and can be considered great when evaluated in the era that produced it. I say great art is great art, regardless of era created or judged.
Sort of like saying the music of Philip Glass is great, unless of course, we are in 19th century Germany, then it's garbage!
Modern 20th century classical music is not the equal of Mozart and company. Period. It is not as important as Mozart, even to the listeners of this current era! The same goes for Fusion. Wynton: Not saying he is the greatest or any kind of god, just saying that, what he is doing is more important to the future of Jazz, than any Fusion players I am aware of.
To your point of, why pickup Marsalis, when you can pickup Ellington etc.... I made the same point to you a few life times ago.:) I said why pick up Fusion, when Hubbard and Mingus are sitting on the same shelf. Makes sense based on my premise!
Cheers |
Let's put the Herbie Hancock thing to rest first. I didn't like the clip. No big deal. I have plenty of Hancock and a lot more on LP. I like the guy.
I think there is one element we have not mentioned in our discussion of the elvolution of Jazz, and that thing is MONEY!
It could be, that if Rockers, of limited talent, weren't making more money on one tour, than Miles made in his life, this Fusion thing might never have happened. Is it a natural elvolution, or one driven by money.
MONEY has come close to destorying many art forms and music genres. Look what happened to Country Music. No relation to the music I grew up on. Blues, has become almost laughable.. Gospel, with all this 'Mass Choir' non-sense and a bunch of over-weight women making folks motion sick. They just say the word Jesus, every now and then. Sterile!
So before we can evaluate change, we should decide if it's a natrual progression, or something that's market driven. That would make it an artificial change.
But Hancock is OK in my book. So is Corea.
The playing on Marsalis and Clapton Play the Blues:
The clarinet player may be average. Even Below aqverage. Maybe any player could have played what he played. You misssed my point. It was not the players, it was the music! The Tune, and esp the arrangement of that Tune. That moment! That's why I think you underestimate Marsalis. This guy is subtle and plays with taste. Just like he did on the Christmas thingy with Battle. BTW, no one has ever heard THAT Layla or THAT Walk With Thee!!
Cheers |
Glad you decided to hang in there.
****you seem to be sayin that 'evolution' must mean improvement.****
Absolutely not, and I would say that "improvement" in the "evolution" of any art is very rare!!! And not only is this at the core of our little cyber-soap opera it is one of the main issues that art lovers (any art) grapple with, consciously or not, especially in our time in history. I know some may think that I get "preachy" about this stuff, but this perspective is missing for many and it is KEY! :
One cannot judge art outside of its rightful historical context. Why? Because art always reflects the times; it is the RESULT of the time during which it was created. How good a job art does of reflecting the times is, ultimately, what determines wether it is good art or not. THIS, WETHER WE LIKE THAT PARTICULAR ART OR NOT!!!!! And chances are that if we don't like the art of a particular era, what we are saying is that we don't like the era. That is why there is always good art in any era; there will always be good artists (it is part of the human condition) expressing their reflection of the era. Wether we like what that era stands for, is a different matter.
THAT is why the music of ANY era, hyphenated name or not, IS relevant and important; and why Wynton's music, while good, will never be as good nor as relevant as Satchmo or Ellington. It is why late Trane and "Bitches Brew" (to use your examples) are great art; like it or not. So, for this listener, what is the point of listening to Wynton when I can listen to Loui and Ellington who created that music as an expression and reflection of THEIR time; a time that gave birth to that music. The current time does not inspire that music; that is what I meant when I alluded to Wynton's music as "museum". Wynton's music looks back to a different era, and for that reason it is not as good; and not in the theoretical sense either, it is simply not on the same high level of execution. Look, no one is saying that it is not good nor worth listening to, and kudos need to be given for keeping a certain flame alive and reminding those who are TOO willing to forget the past; but, again, when there's only so many hours in the day, what is the point when one can listen to Loui, Clifford, Morgan, Dizzy, Miles, and, and, and....? ITS BEEN DONE BETTER BEFORE. Or, Dave Douglas (thanks Acman3) who looks forward, not so much backwards. This takes us to the next point:
****The guy on clarinet!! Wow! I am somewhat surprised that you do see it. If I may respectfully suggest, sometimes maybe you are a little too analytical. Stop thinking about it, and just let it wash over you. ****
First of all, I think you meant to say "surprised you (DONT) see it". Of course I see it. Too analytical? I appreciate the respect, but no way; not analytical enough! Hang out with some musicians sometime and talk music; you think I am analytical.......!? You think your eyes glaze over NOW ?! Respectfully, it is you who don't see it. You always make the mistake of assuming that analysis precludes letting the music "wash over you"; that it has to be one or the other. Just the opposite is true, and you don't seem to want to get a handle on why being able to appreciate how, for instance, Santana is NOTHING like Headhunters, in the ways that matter: THE MUSIC, not just the instruments used. That's pretty sophomoric, if you don't mind my saying so. Sure, Victor Goines sounds terrific on the "Layla" clip, so what? Have you listened to Jimmy Hamilton or Narney Bigard lately? I guarantee you that if you ask Victor how he would compare his own playing to Hamilton's ot Bigard's he would tell you that he feels like an imposter. So.....
Look, most great musicians have one thing in common: humility. Humility about their own talents and place in music history; they are always willing to learn. Why should the listener be any different? |
****He is a great instrumentalist and a great ambassador for jazz; but he has added little to the evolution of jazz. His undeniable and great contribution is of the "museum" type. "Layla" with Clapton? Please, are you serious? I would respectfully suggest that you are letting your admiration for the man and everything that he represents influence your perception of his musical relevance.*****
you seem to be sayin that 'evolution' must mean improvement. I disagree. I think we could say that Philip Glass has had a hand in the 'evolution' of classical music. Along with a few more of the 20th century 'composers'. I think the masters, Mozart, LvB, Bach and those type people, are resting in their graves just fine. Feeling very secure. As are Armstrong, Ellington, Morgan, Mingus, Adderely et al. Evolution or not, the great stuff will be relevant forever. The Chaff will be blown away in due time.
Layla: Great arrangement? Yes!! Is it complex? Profound? Game changer? Probably not. Did / do I enjoy listening to it? Absolutely!! As I do 'just a closer walk with thee'. I was in Nawlins while they were playing that! :) The guy on clarinet!! Wow! I am somewhat surprised that you do see it. If I may respectfully suggest, sometimes maybe you are a little too analytical. Stop thinking about it, and just let it wash over you. Now I could try to be 'hip' and trash it, and profess my love of stuff like Bitches Brew or Late Coltrane. But I would be lying. As you know, You can find magic in music anywhere. Just a few notes that make you say, out loud, YES! There are quite a few of those moments on the Marsalis / Clapton CD. I will now order the DVD.
I will address your other points tomorrow.
Cheers |
****Similarities: instrumental, electric instruments, Latin percussion, same era.*****
This is amazing! You nailed it! That's exactly what I thought. Big group, lots of percussion, no singing, and drenched in latin Flavor! 1970's written all over it.
****That's where the similarities end and says nothing about style, and overall vibe.*****
Left that part to you smart guys! :) Maybe I should have used Mongo Santa-Maria's 'Cloud Nine'. More Jazz?
I said it was better than the Hancock piece because, I had already put them in the same bag. Rightly or wrongly. And in the same bag, for me, Santana kicks butt.
****Santana's band was very exciting (dynamic range?) like few others, but was clearly coming, first and foremost, out of a rock bag with Latin and funk elements. Herbie's Headhunters were jazz players bringing that sensibility to a funk bag.*****
Even a pro like you used the word FUNK in a description of both groups. So you can readily see how a novoice like me could get confused and overlook the finer points of the performances. Of course when I hear the word FUNK. I think 'Parliament' or 'James brown and the JB's'. We don't wanna go there.:)
Ideals I carry in my head.
The 1970's were a low point for Jazz. Sterile. I spent most of my time and money on pop and classical. I spent the decade traveling between Germany - Huntsville, AL - El Paso - Huntsville Again - Korea - and Germany Again.
We used to go to our favorite Korean bar and listen to the Stone's 'Sympathy for the Devil', all night!! Slim Pickings, but Better than nothing.
Not exactly fertile grounds for Jazz, except for the record stores in Germany. The whole thing was like a blur, a lost decade for me.
O-10 was correct to mention that 'Bitches Brew' started the decade. A harbinger of things to come. A Jazz date that will live in infamy!:)
Cheers |
**** I would respectfully suggest that an apology is in order.****
I Agree!
Acman3: I apologize for any comment I made they you felt was out of place or insulting in any way. It was not my intent.
I will have to use more of these :) :) in my rants to try to convey tone / intent. The statement that started with HOW DARE, was directed at the entire thread. I said 'you people' I should have added a, :).
The solos on Layla and the hundred times thingy, I assumed you were talking about Wynton, because I thought we were talking about the Jazz player. I cannot comment on Clapton's solo because I don't own any music by him except the thing with Marsalis. So it could well be old hat, to everyone else. BTW, I did like Clapton's playing.
I agree with The Frogman, yes it does happen, that you make excellent contributions to this thread. Much more informative and thoughtful than mine. You should post more often. That could be because you engage your brain before you type. I tend to skip that step.
I am not a bully. There are enough of those out in the General Population on Audiogon. That's why I never venture out. I also realize, and consider myself to be, the least informed person on this thread, so I am hardly in a position to try and bully anyone.
Again, I apologize.
Cheers |
Now, now, Rok, you promised to "never again". Well, this is one of those times when I have to ask myself: "Do I let that comment go by in the interest of not getting Rok riled up? Or, do I respond to the comment in a way that promotes healthy debate, and take my chances; after all he DID open the door. Hell, we know the answer..... :-) Two issues: ****This reminded me of the Hancock piece**** Huh!? I don't get it, but one's REACTION to music is personal and subjective; good enough for me. Similarities: instrumental, electric instruments, Latin percussion, same era. That's where the similarities end and says nothing about style, and overall vibe. Still, it made you think of it; can't argue with that and to think of good music is always a good thing. ****this is better than the Hancock piece**** Is an apple better than a banana? Not trying to be provocative, Rok; but, that comment demands a comparison of the two. Like you, I love that stuff; but, it is nothing like Herbie's music. Santana's band was very exciting (dynamic range?) like few others, but was clearly coming, first and foremost, out of a rock bag with Latin and funk elements. Herbie's Headhunters were jazz players bringing that sensibility to a funk bag. It's not a question of perfection, the level of improvisation, nuance, and command of harmony is not even in the same ballpark; or, should I say, fruit bowl. So, you like apples more than bananas; no problem there. But, better? Not in my kitchen :-) BTW, this is THE live version of that Santana tune; amazing time in music history: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AqZceAQSJvc |
To the extent that affection for someone can be experienced via dialogue (?) on a forum such as this, Rok, I admit to a sense of it towards your passion for music; I have said so on several occasions. I have "met" few individuals on these forums with the passion that you demonstrate for an admittedly fairly narrow slice of the musical landscape. That would be perfectly fine, but the main obstacle to having reasonable dialogue, debate, whatever we want to call it is that you don't let that very passion for that music stand on it's own. It's like the old saying: "let her go, if it was meant to be, she'll be back (or something like that)". The music that you so love does not need so much of your "protection". Not only does it not need it (as if your "protection" mattered one iota, anyway) it narrows your own horizons and, ironically, violates some of the important tenets of that very music: open mindedness, creativity, forward-looking attitude, evolution, growth, honor the past but always look to the future; THAT is what jazz is. It has been pointed out to you on several occasions that the very musicians that you idolize would look down at the attitude that you demonstrate sometimes. Doesn't that say something to you? Why the arrogance of opinion that you demonstrate? Time and time again you make proclamations about this or that being "better" or "worse", or at worse making comments like those you just made to Acman3 that are totally uncalled for and insulting. He has made some really great contributions to this thread and and deserves better than that. I would respectfully suggest that an apology is in order.
I remember a comment that you made early on in this thread that has always stuck with me; something to the effect that somehow it was inconceivable that someone with a different opinion from yours might "have some insight into music that you don't". Why is that so inconceivable to you? You are severely limiting yourself by not being open to the idea that some may, in fact, have certain insights that you don't. Again, those very musicians that you revere will be the first to tell you that the very reason they got to the point of being worthy of reverence is that they were humble in their knowledge that there is always a lot to learn, and that there are many that do have insights that they didn't. So, I encourage you to take a deep breath, calm down and don't blow an opportunity to grow as a music lover and there is a great deal to learn; a little humility is always a good thing.
Having said all that, Wynton is not God, and I will dare to criticize him. He is a great instrumentalist and a great ambassador for jazz; but he has added little to the evolution of jazz. His undeniable and great contribution is of the "museum" type. "Layla" with Clapton? Please, are you serious? I would respectfully suggest that you are letting your admiration for the man and everything that he represents influence your perception of his musical relevance.
So, I would suggest that everyone take a deep breath, understand that it is the very passion that we feel for music that causes us to act irrationally (I include myself), and get back to the business of sharing great music and hopefully growing in the process.
In the hope that we will be able to do that, I will post what was going to be my next post before I read some of the above. |
Acman3:
Well if you and The Frogman and O-10 and Learsfool are kindred spirits, it would be more appropiate for me to go. I admit to having a mental block when it comes to Free, Avant-garde and Fusion music. So being the disruptive force, and I admit to that, you stay. You have more to offer this thread than I do.
Apologies to our OP.
Cheers |
As far as the solo sounding repetative, I was mainly talking about Mr. Clapton, who was said to be god in the 60's, but now it seems Wynton is.
How can Wynton be the Alpha and Omega, when he is the 2nd or possibly 3rd best Marsalis in his family?
I like Wynton Marsalis's writing, but did you compare him to Ellington in any way? Really?
I salute and give all respect due for the good he does in the world.
Which freakish wannabe's are we talking about, I have played a lot of those?
Rokid, It is very hard to carry on a conversation with you. You are a bully to anyone in disagreement with you. Heck your a bully when people are mostly in agreement with you, and you take it wrong. If I wanted abuse I would go talk to my wife.
O-10, I have enjoyed your company. You are a gentleman. I listen to mostly the same music as all of you, but because you all had the straight ahead taken care of I chose to bring out the different side of Jazz. I hope it wasn't to much of a distraction.
Frogman and Learfool, Thanks, and see you around. |
|
When I went to the clips of Marsalis and Clapton, off to the side I saw these:
Wynton playing in dubai, an islamic country. A line of children waiting to talk and get pointers on playing / music from him. He was showing a girl how to place the mouthpiece and explaining the embouchure
Wynton driving a crowd crazy in Chile
Wynto playing, with Marcus Roberts, for little children for a kids tv show
Wynton playing baroque music
Wynton on the Charlie Rose show speaking to the country on Jazz
Wynton at Lincoln Center, leading the best, and most important Jazz Band on the planet.
He could be considered the Ellington of this era.
How dare you people criticize him, while you praise freakish looking wannabes, making obnoxious, non-sensical noises.
Cheers |
Rok, "Slow Freight", by Ray Bryant has become one of my favorite tunes. I grew up a half block away from a railroad track where slow freights miles long crossed, I know what it's like to have to wait for a slow freight.
This isn't music, it's a portrait; you have a wino whose route to his appointed destination, has been blocked by a slow freight. (slow freights don't cross in the swanky parts of town) Ray Bryant's music is going through his head while he's waiting for this "slow Freight" to cross, which has a slow blues beat, and while he's waiting, he just happens to have a bottle of "joy" to swig on.
Music that can paint a picture is a rare thing, and it seems the only tunes that have that quality, came out in the 50's and 60's.
Enjoy the music.
|
****but did I hear those solo's a hundred times before?****
Only if you have seen the clip a hundred times before. He is the Alpha and Omega of Jazz today. And can play, at the highest level, in ANY genre. Don't like it? Too Bad.
Cheers |
Jazz has been a fusion of Blues and Gospel from the beginning. I like the pieces you showed of Wynton with EC. but did I hear those solo's a hundred times before? As Mingus said to Jackie Mclean, " Play something new, Bird already played that!"
We are just looking for different things in our musical experience. The good thing is we can easily coexist, I can see the best in almost all music, but what led me to Jazz from Blues/ Rock was the way two pieces played on different days by the same person will always be different, and two pieces played by different people may not even sound like the same music. The way they play with or against each other, how they use instrument tones and shades to compliment or contrast, or the way they play with or against time on a standard, and sometimes do all three at the same time fascinates me. A song you have heard a hundred times is new.
Wynton's music feels like a comfy blanket, and as always He does have a great band.
BTW, the complete 7 CD output of Woody Shaw's Muse recordings are available from Mosaic Records. |
Acman3:
This is Real Fusion! Notice how easily Blues and Gospel can be FUSED with Jazz. Esp with a Master doing the arrangements.
The solos on 'Layla', wow! And the Trumpet and Clarinet playing on 'Just a closer walk with thee', if you aren't screaming, there is something wrong somewhere.
O-10: That's Ali Jackson on drums.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1koHhFv9IS4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A91pY1L9meQ
Cheers |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xncznvkB7S8
Cheers
|
O-10:
Is that Nica's Bentley on the WAR album cover?
Cheers |
The Herbie Hancock music reminded me of this, And I LOVE this! Got me thru ther 70's. Along with EW&F. This is better than the Hancock piece. Of course Hancock is more than just one clip. Hell, I have him playing Handel!
Back in the day, When I cranked up the WAR piece on my JBL L-150s WOW!
Music is not about Perfection!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBJa6rKgy3g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVfa-n_zYSo
Cheers |
You know you love it.
At 2:44 she leaves Carnegie Hall and goes to church. Watch her hands and head movement.
I love this woman!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbIAEKQ7GmY
Cheers |
Frogman, Loved the Herbie! I had a problem with Herbie's Rokit stage, but I was more like Rok in his thinking at the time. Only straight ahead, mostly hard bop. The 70's. This is what I was listening to. A gateway drug, so to speak. One of the best fusion records of all time. A definite love or hate recording. It passes Roks crowd test. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3sT5Ucyw_0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YShQZUMe7g |
Frogman, that was absolutely spectacular; the tambourine lady provided a visual intensity that can not be duplicated on CD. I would have given anything to have been there, continue the 70's.
Enjoy the music.
|
Today being saturday, I thought I would give Bop and Classical a rest and stroll down memory lane. A little Motown and oldies but goodies.
Happened across this:
Quincy Jones -- BACK ON THE BLOCK
I remembered it had a good rap tune with Ice-T.(a masterpiece, by rap standards) And also a version of Birdland, which I liked.
While listening I looked thru the booklet for the first time. I was stunned! Here are some of the people ivolved in this thing:
Ella, Ray Charles, Miles, Dizzy, Sarah, Mcferrin, George Benson and god knows who else. Amazing! Outrage!!
They even included recorded voice of Lester Young! Damn! Even the dead aren't safe from these people.
But, the reason I am posting is to show what I think is the danger of electronic instruments in Music and esp Jazz.
The players are credited with the usual things, vocals, sax, trumpet etc.... here are a few new, to me, ones:
synthesizer programming
kick and snare drum sounds
keyboards (no more piano)
synthesizer arrangement
rhythm arrangement
herbie hancock, synthesizer pads and M1 pads
synthesizer strings arranged and composed by...
M1 programming
WTF??? Mount up regulators!! Ride to the sound of the 'drum sounds'!
It's called a slippery slope.
Cheers
I think it's a good CD. Had to be, it's Quincy! |
