Jazz for aficionados

Acman3:

Now, I have experienced two of the worst musical moments in my life!!

Cheers

O-10:

Both of the Stan Kenton tunes were disappointments. Mainly the sound quality and the arrangements.

We had Mellow-phones in our marching band, but they looked sort of like French horns.

I LOVE Malaguena. I wore out a few '101 Strings' LPs playing that tune.

I also just LOVE Drum and Bugle Corps. Used to be televised down here. Some of the top units used to stop here and practice at the locl High School.

Here is the best of Both worlds!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PECUpJuUeAQ

Cheers

Hi guys - sorry, been very busy. Now have a few days off, but will be going to visit my folks for Thanksgiving, so will probably be off the board again.

Orpheus - yes, as I believe Rok said, those are mellophones. By the way, the term Stan Kenton uses in that video is incorrect, he calls them something weird like mellophoniums. Anyway, they are basically large trumpets that have a mellower sound, closer to my instrument in tone quality. Larger than the fluglehorn, which you may be more familiar with, as that is used much more in jazz than the mellophones were, and the sound of a flugle horn is closer to the trumpet sound than the mellophone is. In fact, I think Stan Kenton's band was the only one that used mellophones on anything like a regular basis. They are most commonly used in marching bands. The trumpet players in that video were playing them, however in many marching bands, an extension is put into the lead pipe of the instrument so that a French horn mouthpiece can fit, and then horn players play them. They are truly awful instruments, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. In recent years, an instrument called the marching French horn has been invented to replace mellophones, so they are not used much at all anymore. They were quite common, though, nothing unusual about them, in fact I think it is unusual that you haven't ever seen one - you probably have in marching bands without realizing it.

In the two years I spent in a high school marching band before I escaped to an arts academy, I had to play the mellophone. Miserable experience. I have played some Stan Kenton charts that had mellophone parts in pops concerts, though we played them on our regular horns. They were screaming high, so were not very pleasant to play. Decent enough charts. That was a very popular band, guys like Maynard Ferguson and other famous trumpet players came out of it. Nothing particularly interesting about it from a purely musical standpoint, frankly, but they did have some good tunes.

Interesting conversation going on since I have looked in - I want to highlight some things that Frogman has said, starting with he is absolutely correct to say that one's reaction to music is subjective. There are many things about music that are not subjective. An analogy might be to food - many people love to eat things that aren't actually very good, and defend it by saying that taste is subjective.

This has to do also with this comment of Frogman's: "THAT, my friend, is why it's not possible to "know too much"; and why knowing a little is a dangerous thing. It's fine to always fall back on the comfort of "subjectivity", but in the broad scheme there is, in fact, a nut-and -bolts way judging any music's merit."

And also this: "Ignorance may be bliss, but it certainly does not lead to insight. Additionally, there is no glory in ignorance and knowledge does not in any way detract from the emotional appreciation of the music. That is a mistake that those content to remain "ignorant" of the nuts and bolts routinely make; that ignoring the facts somehow leads to a better emotional connection with the music. It is precisely the opposite; it leads to a better appreciation. The irony here is that the players that we are talking about, themselves, were/are so steeped in the nuts and bolts of the music and discussions about what made a particular player great or not, that it makes any of our "discussions" seem sophomoric. Listeners tend to over-romanticize the process of music making (including jazz) as a spiritual "calling of the muse". Only after a very deep understanding of the nuts and bolts can a creative artist find his voice; wether the nuts and bolts was learned in a music school or the jam session. Why should it be any different for the listener?"

Rok stated a little later that " I should know that improvisation is taking place, without having to be an expert on nuts and bolts."

While this statement is actually true, nevertheless the fact that you were not able to tell quite frankly says more about your listening ability/general musical knowledge than it does about the performer and/or writer of what you are listening to. A very small amount of work would quickly remedy this, you just have to put in the effort, and if you do, the rewards in understanding and appreciation of the music you love are far greater than the small effort required. I'm not saying you need a theory degree or anything, you just need to learn to listen a little more attentively than you think you are (talking about how to do this will have to wait). Please do not take this personally, it is not at all meant that way - it's late and I am tired, and I tend to come off with a different tone than I intend, and I apologize for that.

First, let me apologize for misspelling "Learsfool", some days I misspell my own name.

Rok, my appreciation for these jams on "The 100 Best Tunes Of The 1950's" has grown tenfold since I first heard them. Our discussions about the very musicians we're listening to has heightened my awareness of their individual contributions to the whole of jazz.

Before, I didn't pay much attention to sidemen, but now I'm aware of each individual sideman and what he's contributing to the tune. Jackie McClean was chosen a lot as a sideman, and so was Pepper Adams; they both sound better as side men, than on their own albums that I have in my collection.

Ray Charles is one hell of jazz pianist, but we both knew that. "Milestones" was certainly ground breaking with his introduction of "modal jazz"; while I still don't quite know what that is, I can distinctly remember the first time I heard this tune; it struck me as not only being different, but I thought each individual sideman was as outstanding as Miles. His ability to select the very best sidemen for "his" music is one that he retained until the end.

This wont be my last post on "The 100 Best Tunes of The 1950's".

Enjoy the music.