Jazz for aficionados

*****Now, what exactly is your point?*****

That the clip was an example of 'nuts&bolts' blues. IOW, it met some school book definition of the blues.

****I would bet that they would really dig it; because great musicians are open minded and appreciate great playing no matter the style (or color).*****

You keep saying this, but I don't buy it. You can't go by what they say in public or during interviews. If a person makes their living depending on the public, why would a person risk alienating large parts of that public by speaking ill of others. All those guys have huge egos!! Or course they know some guys can't play. They may never say it out loud.

I don't know why you always try to introduce color into this. Give it a rest. Unless you think you can have a detailed discussion of Jazz, Blues, Gospel and R&B, without mentioning black artists. I guess you can try.

*****After all, it's the violin playing that was the subject of the discussion; no?*****

As a matter of fact it was not. I just presented the clip because it was different. The NPR thingy. Also checked some more of her stuff on the side clips, and found a few good ones. And they were good.

The OP and I both said we had stuff by her that we were not impressed with. We then agreed she had improved. NO ONE said, or suggested, that she was better than anyone. The clips were not even of her group. She was guest or just sat in. It was still GOOD Playing.

Grappelli is great. All of his stuff sounds French and European to my ear. The hot club stuff. Maybe gypsy is a better word. If you like it, no problem. With me, a little goes a long way. I have his highly rated CDs, and those with Django. That's all I Need.

Now, my question. What was your point in presenting the O'Conner clip? ESP since the discussion was not about violins or blues.

Cheers

Rok, I fully expected a response along these lines. My impression is that when there isn't unequivocal agreement with your assessment of an artist there seems to be a knee jerk reaction in the negative instead of a substantive discussion of the particulars of the "why's and how's"; perhaps I am mistaken

***That the clip was an example of 'nuts&bolts' blues. IOW, it met some school book definition of the blues.****

Perhaps your school book. I already conceded that it is not like Delta blues and pointed out that to make the comparison is pointless. But, to suggest that those guys can't play is ludicrous; those guys can play and they demonstrate superior musicianship even if falling short in the area of authenticity as compared to Delta blues.

****Now, my question. What was your point in presenting the O'Conner clip? ESP since the discussion was not about violins or blues.****

The discussion certainly was about violins. My point was the same as in presenting the Grapelli clips: as a way of explaining, while agreeing that Carter is a good player, why I am not impressed with her playing quite as much as others are, and why I prefer to listen to other players. I believe I made my point very clear previously. All, as an extension of O-10's comment and query about her tone; and the reason why the discussion had turned to violins. Now, why did you turn it into a discussion about the blues and the authenticity of a particular style of playing? That would be fine; as I am sure you know by now I welcome a challenge. The difference is, however, that while I agreed that Carter was a good player there were aspects of her playing that I did not like; and, I offered specifics. You dismissed the O'Connor performance out of hand as "school book", "they can't play", etc. C'mon!

Obviously, we will have disagreements. What I can offer is this: it may come as a surprise to you, but I don't have any less appreciation for Delta Blues and it's authenticity (or not) than you do; I have listened to a lot more of it than you may imagine. You seem to regularly dismiss the (perhaps ill-chosen term) "nut and bolts" and suggest that somehow it also means a distraction from some sort of inner and deeper appreciation of the soul of music; you couldn't be more mistaken. This is a recurring theme in this thread. I can only keep trying to point out and encourage you to understand that deeper understanding of the "inner workings" (is that better?) of music leads to deeper appreciation of ALL aspects of music. I will concede that this concept may not apply to everyone as I can understand how going to that analytical place may be an insurmountable distraction FOR SOME. In a nutshell, and to sum up why I made the comments that I made about the three players mentioned (and it relates to the subject of authenticity vs. "nuts and bolts"):

As I have said before, I love food analogies. I have been on a Mexican food kick lately. I cook it and have been to various restaurants of various pedigrees lately. Some restaurants are of the Mom and Pop variety and offer truly authentic Mexican food; "the real deal" and evoke being being home (I am not Mexican), grandma and all that good stuff. At the opposite end of the spectrum are those restaurants that offer "Nuveau-Mexican" cuisine prepared by chefs that have impeccable and schooled technique and offer creations that are sometimes delicious and are prepared with the finest ingredients and presented in unique and visually beautiful ways; unfortunately, sometimes these creations have only a passing resemblance to traditional Mexican cooking. Now for the rub (pun intended):

There are also those restaurants of the Mom and Pop (and Nuveau) variety that offer food that is simply not that good. Authentic? Yes; but, just so-so in its execution and resulting taste. It may be too oily, too salty, served cold or prepared with old and inferior ingredients. So which would I prefer to eat? The "authentic" but mediocre food, or the excellent Nuveau (and barely Mexican) food? For me, it's a no-brainer.

Cheers.

Just wondering.

Sheet music, and degree of difficulty. Would the written score used by the world's top Orchestras of a Beethoven symphony all be identical?

If they can and do get simpler, or less difficult, give an example of an Orchestra (name) that would use the simpler score.

Cheers

***My impression is that when there isn't unequivocal agreement with your assessment of an artist there seems to be a knee jerk reaction in the negative instead of a substantive discussion of the particulars of the "why's and how's"; perhaps I am mistaken****

I think all three of us agree on Carter. Yes, perhaps you are.

***But, to suggest that those guys can't play is ludicrous; those guys can play and they demonstrate superior musicianship even if falling short in the area of authenticity as compared to Delta blues.***

Didn't say they could not play. Did not even say the tune was not blues. I was just pointing out that music can meet certain technical criteria, and still not sound like what the name implies.

****"inner workings"**** aaaaaiiiiiieeeeeeeeee!!!!!
you slay one dragon and The Frogman blindsides you with another! Mercy Lord!!

****The "authentic" but mediocre food, or the excellent Nuveau (and barely Mexican) food? For me, it's a no-brainer.***

Depends on the genre. Blues, Gospel, Folk and real Country (not C&W), has to be authentic, otherwise its not really what the name says it is. A lot of modern music has no 'authentic' component to it. It consist of just the notes on the page.

IOW, the current Queen of Opera Divas, can sing any gospel song ever written. Blues and country songs also. Even if this diva was born and raised in Germany. Right? She can get the nuts and bolts, oops, I mean inner workings, perfect pitch and tone, but I doubt if she would get the correct meaning of the music. She would not want to get on the stage with The Gaithers or Mahalia Jackson.

When I was reading your food analogy, I thought about the Little Stevie Wonder song "Finger-tips parts one and two. On the record you can hear a member of the band shouting to his band mates "what Key?,What Key?" hahahaha. Mom and Pop forgot to put the meat in the tamales!!

Other than these few insignificant points, we are in total agreement.

Cheers

Interesting segue!

I don't understand the question. The score is the score and the music is the music as the composer intended it; no more, no less.

Rok, truly no disrespect intended, but unless I am missing something in your question, that is a rather bizarre question; and the reason I keep trying to encourage you to learn more about the... well, you know what (and it can't be bought at a hardware store).

Let me try to answer your question this way:

I am sure that you have several versions of LvB's 9th. OK, so when you listen to them do you hear differences in the music, version to version, other than possibly stylistic differences in the playing and/or singing? You shouldn't. The score is exactly the same always with the possible exception of relatively minor differences in the various editions (certain repeated passages, corrected notes etc.); but, those differences don't, in any way, make the music any more difficult or easier to perform. The scores of major works are considered pretty sacrosanct; you don't mess with them in a significant way. Don't confuse this with some versions of works performed by some of the "classical-lite" orchestras like that of that Andre Rieu dude where the scores are sometimes "modified" to better suit the showy vibe with the multi-colored ladies' concert dress; that stuff is pretty much bullshit.

I would appreciate some more info re your question to give a better answer.