****I don't understand why everyone is going Gaga over Ventura, and no one had anything good to say about Andy Bey and the Sisters. A huge step up, in my, less advanced opinion.****
**** Frogman will have to answer your question in regard to Charlie compared to Andy Bey and the Sisters, he has a way with words.****
Well, that's a tough one. A way with words is no guarantee that the message will ring true to any given listener. As we have demonstrated many times here the easy and perhaps cynical answer is that "there is no accounting for taste", the better and more insightful answer is that the very things that make music so great are what makes one's reaction to it so personal.
A comparison between Charlie Ventura and The Bey Sisters is particularly difficult because they are obviously two entirely different types of artists: one is an instrumentalist, the other a vocal group. The music of this instrumentalist has a much stronger improvisatory element than that of this vocal group. So, one could stop right there for an explanation of why a particular listener might prefer one over the other. I don't think that is the case here since our discussions here have a generally fairly wide scope. For the most part and for me personally, as has been discussed previously, singers who scat are automatically held to a very high standard that is seldom met; that of instrumentalists.
Charlie Ventura was a very fine swing player during a time when bebop was taking shape. He was steeped in the swing tradition and came to bebop peripherally and, one could say, after the fact. His playing always had an obvious element of the swing tradition in it even when "bopping". Some of the giants of bebop may have started as swing players, and were certainly influenced by swing, but went in the direction of bebop much sooner in their careers and with more decisiveness. When one listens to Charlie Parker or even Phil Woods it is not obvious at all what their "swing" influences were; so strong is their bebop language and style. I too like Ventura's voice and think he was a very good player; I particularly like his ballad playing on tenor, in part because I love that style of tenor playing in general. I would not, however, say that I am "gaga" over his playing. He was a player that is worthy of adding to one's collection and also a player that is important to the understanding of the evolution of the music from a historical perspective. He was only a few years younger than players like Bird and Miles, but in the context of the incredibly vibrant and quickly evolving jazz scene at the time, it should not be surprising how those few years can have a large effect on the stylistic development of a player. This is not unlike how my sister who is only five years older than I speaks perfect English, but with a heavy accent while I have no accent; this in spite of immigrating to America at the same time. She had spent more years steeped in the native language than I; and, being older, more resistant to the new language in spite of the same level of desire to assimilate.
So, how does one compare two totally different kinds of artists as far as ultimate artistic value? Both Ventura and the Bey Sisters have merit, and I agree that, as O-10 says they "are a joyous sound". Personally, I would not make such a comparison and just as I am not "gaga" over Ventura, I don't understand why anyone would "go gaga" over the Beys; and certainly not a "huge step up" in artistic merit (in absolute terms) if the comparison must be made. I like their sound, but FOR ME that type of vocal ensemble singing requires a certain level of finesse in the areas of tightness, intonation and sophistication of the vocal arrangements that I just don't hear in their singing compared to groups like "Lambert, Hendricks and Ross" and certainly "The Manhattan Transfer". They are fun and clearly good entertainers, but in absolute terms, a little rough around the edges and rather simplistic as far as the arrangements. Perhaps that is precisely why their sound appeals so much to some.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sql9PvsuT10
**** Frogman will have to answer your question in regard to Charlie compared to Andy Bey and the Sisters, he has a way with words.****
Well, that's a tough one. A way with words is no guarantee that the message will ring true to any given listener. As we have demonstrated many times here the easy and perhaps cynical answer is that "there is no accounting for taste", the better and more insightful answer is that the very things that make music so great are what makes one's reaction to it so personal.
A comparison between Charlie Ventura and The Bey Sisters is particularly difficult because they are obviously two entirely different types of artists: one is an instrumentalist, the other a vocal group. The music of this instrumentalist has a much stronger improvisatory element than that of this vocal group. So, one could stop right there for an explanation of why a particular listener might prefer one over the other. I don't think that is the case here since our discussions here have a generally fairly wide scope. For the most part and for me personally, as has been discussed previously, singers who scat are automatically held to a very high standard that is seldom met; that of instrumentalists.
Charlie Ventura was a very fine swing player during a time when bebop was taking shape. He was steeped in the swing tradition and came to bebop peripherally and, one could say, after the fact. His playing always had an obvious element of the swing tradition in it even when "bopping". Some of the giants of bebop may have started as swing players, and were certainly influenced by swing, but went in the direction of bebop much sooner in their careers and with more decisiveness. When one listens to Charlie Parker or even Phil Woods it is not obvious at all what their "swing" influences were; so strong is their bebop language and style. I too like Ventura's voice and think he was a very good player; I particularly like his ballad playing on tenor, in part because I love that style of tenor playing in general. I would not, however, say that I am "gaga" over his playing. He was a player that is worthy of adding to one's collection and also a player that is important to the understanding of the evolution of the music from a historical perspective. He was only a few years younger than players like Bird and Miles, but in the context of the incredibly vibrant and quickly evolving jazz scene at the time, it should not be surprising how those few years can have a large effect on the stylistic development of a player. This is not unlike how my sister who is only five years older than I speaks perfect English, but with a heavy accent while I have no accent; this in spite of immigrating to America at the same time. She had spent more years steeped in the native language than I; and, being older, more resistant to the new language in spite of the same level of desire to assimilate.
So, how does one compare two totally different kinds of artists as far as ultimate artistic value? Both Ventura and the Bey Sisters have merit, and I agree that, as O-10 says they "are a joyous sound". Personally, I would not make such a comparison and just as I am not "gaga" over Ventura, I don't understand why anyone would "go gaga" over the Beys; and certainly not a "huge step up" in artistic merit (in absolute terms) if the comparison must be made. I like their sound, but FOR ME that type of vocal ensemble singing requires a certain level of finesse in the areas of tightness, intonation and sophistication of the vocal arrangements that I just don't hear in their singing compared to groups like "Lambert, Hendricks and Ross" and certainly "The Manhattan Transfer". They are fun and clearly good entertainers, but in absolute terms, a little rough around the edges and rather simplistic as far as the arrangements. Perhaps that is precisely why their sound appeals so much to some.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sql9PvsuT10