2. music
  3. 1361722327

Jazz for aficionados

Jazz for aficionados

I'm going to review records in my collection, and you'll be able to decide if they're worthy of your collection. These records are what I consider "must haves" for any jazz aficionado, and would be found in their collections. I wont review any record that's not on CD, nor will I review any record if the CD is markedly inferior. Fortunately, I only found 1 case where the CD was markedly inferior to the record.

Our first album is "Moanin" by Art Blakey and The Jazz Messengers. We have Lee Morgan , trumpet; Benney Golson, tenor sax; Bobby Timmons, piano; Jymie merrit, bass; Art Blakey, drums.

The title tune "Moanin" is by Bobby Timmons, it conveys the emotion of the title like no other tune I've ever heard, even better than any words could ever convey. This music pictures a person whose down to his last nickel, and all he can do is "moan".

"Along Came Betty" is a tune by Benny Golson, it reminds me of a Betty I once knew. She was gorgeous with a jazzy personality, and she moved smooth and easy, just like this tune. Somebody find me a time machine! Maybe you knew a Betty.

While the rest of the music is just fine, those are my favorite tunes. Why don't you share your, "must have" jazz albums with us.

Enjoy the music.
orpheus10
rok2id's avatar
rok2id
7,859 posts
 
HitforHit:

I agree with you about the drugs vs culture thing. I am currently reading a book about how classical music reflected the times and society in which it was written. I think Boxing changed for similar reasons.

I will check out the labels you listed. Old school Jazz by young guys with modern recording methods. Can't get any better than that.

Avant Garde can be very good. Dolphy and Kirk are too examples. But some others just seem to want to be weird just for the sake of being weird.

Thanks for the tip on Blades. I will investigate.

Welcome to the thread.

Cheers
rok2id's avatar
rok2id
7,859 posts
 
Hitiforhit: sorry, got your name wrong.
frogman
7,472 posts
 
****I am currently reading a book about how classical music reflected the times and society in which it was written.****

Rok, I seem to recall having a rather heated exchange with you after I wrote those words in a post almost verbatim; actually, my comment was about music in general. That is one of the most basic tenets of musicology and something that if appreciated can give a lot of insight . Glad we are finally on the same page about this. See, we CAN agree :-)
rok2id's avatar
rok2id
7,859 posts
 
The Frogman:

Heated exchanges? You sure? :)

A couple of excerpts from the book.

"We would do well to avoid the notion that art is linear, and that,somehow it just keeps getting better as we go along. Certainly, art, and for us, music, gets different as it goes along."

"There is a reason why we turn to the paintings of Vermeer, the sculptures of Michelangelo,and the music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms, to name just a few, in search of truth and edification, and it has nothing to do with nostalgia for the past. Great art is timeless, and it speaks to us, directly and relevantly, across time."

He pointed out, while talking about art not being linear, "......Stravinsky and Schoenberg better than what came before? Obviously not."

He also said, the more we know, the better we hear. :) Sound familiar? I think you said that also.

He is speaking of Classical Western Music, or Composed Music as he calls it. But all he said applies equally to all genres.

We go back to Ellington, Mingus and Morgan,etc... for the same reason we go back to Bach, Beethoven, etc......

Great book. And I'm just on page nine. :)

Cheers
frogman
7,472 posts
 
Sounds like a great book, and I commend you for your passion and interest in the art. I agree with all that is stated in those quotes. I would only point out that art is, in fact, linear in the sense that what came before influences what will follow; but, I do agree that it is not linear in the sense that what follows is not necessarily better. I agree that Stravinsky and Schoenberg is not "better" than Mozart or Brahms; only a fool would claim that. Great art is, indeed, timeless. However, it would also be foolish to claim that there has been nothing after Mozart or Brahms that is of equal value. What distinguishes great art is not the value of what it attempts to portray (the times and society), but how well it portrays it; no matter how we may feel about the times and society.

BTW, what is the book?
More to discover