Jazz for aficionados
Consistent with the power of great music, the subject of "Blood Count" has elicited some very strong feelings. I don't think I can add anything to what I have already stated concerning my reasons for considering the original version to be the best other than to encourage all to consider that context (historical or otherwise) is very important when "judging" any art. I invite and encourage Onhwy61 to tell us why he considers Getz's version to be superior. Not to take him to task, but simply as an attempt take this discussion beyond simple statements of "I like this better", and learn what exactly he means by stating that Getz "embodies" the tune. I realize that putting feelings about a performance, and art in general, is not an easy task. But, surely, some commentary should be possible; if only something as simple as "I prefer the sound of the tenor saxophone", but hopefully something beyond that. Having said all that, and since Gioia's review was cited as support of Onhwy's particular viewpoint (or, at least, how his comment was interpreted), a couple of observations about the review: Interestingly, Gioia never says that Getz's version is superior at all. He never says anything about Getz playing it better than Hodges nor that Getz's quartet renditions are better than Ellington's. Notice that I said "his quartet's rendition's"; this goes back to my previous comments about musical context and the need to look at the entire composition/orchestration, not simply the melody. What he actually does say is "Getz owned this song". What does he mean by this? I doubt Gioia is lurking on Agon in order to tell us, but I think we have some important clues. Again, context; historical context: Strayhorn wrote it, Ellington/Hodges performed it and recorded it (once). After Strayhorn's passing (and adding poignancy to the whole matter) Ellington never played it again out of respect for Strayhorn. Many years later, Getz makes the composition a staple of his repertory and plays and records it beautifully; and, by all accounts, probably much more frequently than any other artist. THAT is what I believe Gioia meant by "Getz owned this song". Not, that he played it better than Hodges did. I believe Gioia (or any credible jazz writer) knows better than to say something like that, while fully understanding the reverence held for Ellington, Strayhorn, Hodges, and the circumstances around that composition. Speaking of reverence and the other "review" that is cited (Scott Albin). First of all, I find it conspicuous that he uses the same language that the far more credible writer (Gioia) used; that Getz "owned" the tune "FROM THAT POINT ON" (1982). I would not argue that point. However, he also said that Getz "outdid Hodges". While I definitely don't agree with that assertion, I think that he, also, misses the point about needing to consider the entire composition and not just the tune. Now, the part about reverence, and I admit that any conclusion about this is conjecture on my part, but it decreases this particular writer's credibility in my book: I find highly suspect this writer's assertion that Getz had never heard the Ellington/Hodges recording of "Blood Count" prior to recording it fifteen years after Ellington recorded it. First of all, Getz had a great fondness for Strayhorn tunes; to the extent that he recorded an entire album of the music of Strayhorn, as well as performing many of the compositions live on a regular basis. A great jazz player with a fondness for a particular composer would be familiar with just about all of that composer's work. Additionally, given the prominence of Ellington, Strayhorn, Hodges and the circumstances around the composition, the story is the kind of thing that travels like wild fire within the jazz community. It is difficult to believe that Getz had never heard it. Obviously conjecture on my part, but I think it points to the use of hyperbole by that particular writer. Not that Ohnwy61 needs anyone's opinion to support his own; he doesn't. But, personally, I would appreciate knowing why he has it. |
****efforts to internationalize 'MY' music**** Why is that a bad thing? America is the epitome of internationalization; no? Re the music, you might find this interesting reading: http://books.google.com/books?id=ulLJUDmptFMC&pg=PA349&lpg=PA349&dq=blue+notes+in+african+music&source=bl&ots=i1Ef8qb7Vk&sig=XqtXhhXVwANNGPOQB9aNPz9_vQQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0rR5Upm1F6nasASoo4L4Bw&ved=0CCkQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=blue%20notes%20in%20african%20music&f=false Cheers. |
Rok, I have a feeling this will get YOU moving: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PE6HmArln_k BTW, Sam and Dave on vocals, Herbie Hancock on keys, and in the horn section (among others) the previously discussed tuba player Howard Johnson on baritone saxophone (one of his doubles), and a young Dave Sanborn before he became a "star". |
OK, jazz aficionados, here is an opportunity to be the first recipient of the "Lobotomy Award": Can you name the tune that Frank Wess and Gene Harris are playing on? On the above clip you never actually hear the melody of the tune, only the harmonic progression and improvisation. The chord progression of this tune is one of the most distinctive and recognizable. Hint: Duke BTW, the title of this award was inspired by a quote of one of my favorite comments ever read on this forum ** "Hell, no wonder I don't GET IT. Ever since I had my lobotomy, (in a vain attempt to be able to hear wire)" - Rok2id |
Thanks for asking. Yes, but I like my privacy and anonymity, and I don't like to toot my own horn (pun intended); especially on public forums. I am sure you have noticed that I don't play the "as a professional musician...." card. I will say, however, that the CD's range from movie soundtracks, to recordings with The NY Philharmonic, The Saturday Night Live Band, Orpheus Chamber Orchestra, Met Opera, Mario Bauza, Paquito D'Rivera, NY Pops and lots in between. No false modesty here, but that's way more information than I am comfortable with :-) for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the nature of the industry that I am in; it is a very small community. BTW, speaking of Herbie and Orpheus Chamber Orchestra checkout Herbie's "Gershwin's World", absolutely beautiful record, |
**** I want to trace African music from slavery to the present, beginning with music from Brazil.**** So far, I don't think we have dug deeply enough, and skipped a few rungs on the ladder. It all began with something like this: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nKgCJCvY5Vo Around 1450, the Portuguse brought African slaves to Brazil. Their music mixed with the indigenous music and resulted in something like this (notice the typically African "call and response" nature of the music, and the name "Macumba"): http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2YiMtWFfydo Add the Portuguese/European melodic and harmonic tradition to the Afro/Brazilian approach to rhythm and you get something like this; the "choro", the first popular Brazilian style: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=46M-Eor8D08 |
****The most important and significant thing said so far, is that there is no African, in African-American music. It is unquely American. This includes Jazz.**** Personally, I would word it slightly differently. There IS African in American music; but, there is no such thing as "African-American" music. It is uniquely American. |
“She really liked younger men. Sometimes we would take off our clothes and listen to jazz.” ~ Alan Greenspan on Ayn Rand Rok, in case you didn't know, Alan Greenspan was a jazz tenor player. “The worst part of Ms. Rand's parties was Mr. Greenspan running around naked in the lobby.” ~ Doorman at 36 E 36th Street on Ayn Rand :-) |
Yes, THAT Greenspan. In Leonard Garment's (attorney and top advisor to Nixon during Watergate) biography "Crazy Rhythm: From Brooklyn And Jazz To Nixon's White House, Watergate, And Beyond", there is a very funny picture of a big band; in the reed section, at opposite ends, are the tenor players: Leanard Garment and Alan Greenspan. Agree re Ayn Rand. |
This is the second installment of the "Labotomy Award" contest. The title says it all; and, no, I don't think that this is an example of "bullshit".....maybe. Can you name the composition that is quoted in this performance? As usual, being the gentlemen that we all are, no cheating! Hint: Learsfool, you are automatically disqualified from participation ;-) http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d0HB8ybKJzo As usual, thanks to Rok2id for the inspiration :-) |
Not much that can be said that hasn't been said many times over about, probably, the greatest composition of the 20th century. In order to (slowly) bring things back to the subject this thread (and possibly change Rok's opinion of this composer) this is THE recording of a work written for Woody Herman and his "First Herd": http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8M4VZJ8qpcU |
NOT scatting in the usual sense, but check this out. First you have to listen to the original, followed by the vocal version: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RPfFhfSuUZ4 http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ASFCs4IUolI Biggest surprise for me was George Benson. He kills on this, sounding the most relaxed and less "practiced". |
Learsfool, interesting and thought-provoking piece; but, with some real problems. First of all, I don't subscribe to the, unfortunately typical, negative doom-and-gloom view of the health of Jazz and what many feel its place in popular culture is or should be. But, first, some "technical" problems with the article: The author reveals lack of depth in his perspective right off the bat by putting Kenny G alongside Coltrane as examples of terrible and great Jazz, without understanding (or, at least, acknowledging) that Kenny G is not a Jazz artist at all. That many today may consider him a Jazz musician is both irrelevant to the important issue here and also indicative of the futility of approaching the issue that he attempts to tackle from this perspective. He then goes on to use the example of Sinatra's "My Way". Huh?! Jazz?! His points about Americans' attraction to vocal music and lyrics are well taken. However, more than anything, they point to a key issue in the "problem"; if one insists on calling it a problem. I don't, necessarily. To me, as with many trends in the arts, it is an inevitability. The "problem" goes back to the issue that Rok brought up (with a little prodding :-) ) recently: that art, inevitably, reflects the times; and, also, to our mistaken insistence on relating Jazz to popular culture. Yes, Jazz was the pop music at one point in time. So what? That was then, and today is a completely different time. It is important to point out that every popular music has its time and then fades into relative obscurity. Ragtime did, swing did, big-band did, bebop did, folk did, etc. It is also important for us to individually acknowledge that, at least in part, our personal affinity for Jazz from certain periods of time is a reflection of our personal affinity for all that the particular period of time stands for in our lives and should not necessarily be the ultimate test of that music's quality or value in the scheme of things. None of this is to say that we cannot regret how the music has changed, and how that change relates to our personal aesthetic. However, to indulge in that kind of outlook is to dismiss the positives in where things really stand. I have to respectfully disagree with our esteemed OP by pointing out that young musicians are studying Jazz in record numbers. There are vibrant Jazz scenes all over the world; created by these young players who are breaking musical boundaries and making some great music. Sure, I, like many of us, pine for the '50's or '60's Blue Note sound; but, to think that there isn't a lot of great Jazz being made today is not only short-sighted, but does a disservice to the art form. The problem is that we want Jazz to be popular the way that it once was; it ain't gonna happen! That Jazz continues to transform itself (wether any one of us likes it or not) and to thrive (even if not "popular" to the masses) is a testament to its power and timelessnes (unlike many other popular genres). So, what is it that the author of the article is really concerned about? Is he concerned about about American culture as a whole, and it's diminished interest in Jazz? Or, is he concerned about the health and viability of the art? I think that Jazz is alive and well, and the doomsayers in positions of power (critics, press) are, in some ways, doing it a disservice with their proclamations of its demise. BTW, think about how many Jazz mags exist today (in print and on-line) compared to the past. If this, along with the ever-increasing number of young Jazz players, is not an indication of the health of the music, I don't know what is. American culture, as a whole is a different matter. It may be a different matter; but, as with the health of Jazz, I am more optimistic than not. Of course, we can point to the easy and obvious stuff: our obsession with materialism, the impact of social-media and gadgetry and their impact on the development (or demise) of social skills, the negative effects of the incredible wealth that this country offers even the "poor" which leads to sense of entitlement and distortion of healthy values. All of this relates in many ways to what I think the author is trying to say. However, one of the things that is usually overlooked when comparing ours to other cultures and those other cultures' apparently deeper appreciation for art is the simple and obvious fact that our culture is in its infancy in comparison to most of the cultures usually cited; cultures which have a many-centuries old tradition in the arts. American culture is still taking shape and establishing roots, and Jazz is one of its main roots. One of the most provocative comments I have ever read on the subject was by one of our favorite topics of discussion: Wynton Marsalis. Wynton points out that Jazz is about us as a culture and that listening to Jazz is like looking at ourselves in a mirror. I would propose that all of the things mentioned previously which are indications and the causes of young Americans' inability and reluctance to be introspective are a reason why they are reluctant to "look in the mirror". However, I think this will change as our culture matures. On a personal level, being the father of a young (23) visual artist with a deep appreciation for all music, and getting to know his circle of friends, has reinforced what I believe are reasons for being optimistic. |
He wrote many good tunes. His best known is "Nuages" which O-10 posted a link to above; it's been recorded by many jazz greats. "Minor Blues" is another one, as is "Belleville". If this ain't jazz: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nS2ylPAUxzA What do you call this? (Notice the great similarities): http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xiWCUIY6ClQ Rok's comments about Louis Armstrong above are particularly appropriate. From The Louis Armstrong House Museum: *****In 1930, Django's friend Emile Savitry played for him Armstrong's new recording of "Dallas Blues," Accord to Savitry, when Django heard it, he broke down weeping, holding his head in his hands and exclaiming in the Romani language, "Ach moune," or in English, "My brother." Here is the recording that changed the life of Django--and the guitar--completely: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=789Co-Ad1AY |
A few comments about some recent clips and mentions: Rok, Benny "At Carnegie Hall" was my very first jazz record. I don't know how obvious it's been based on past posts, but I love Benny and that style of music in general. Personally, I don't understand how a truly comprehensive discussion on jazz can take place without substantial mention and discussion of players like Goodman, Artie Shaw, Harry James and others from that period. The level of artistry, within that style, is fabulous; not to mention their contribution to paving the way for the more modern players. I would like to see more of it on this thread. I am sure O-10 meant the comment as a generalization, and I certainly don't know what he considers a "good living", but while it is true that many jazz artists didn't get their due, just as many made very good livings. Going back in time, and speaking of Benny, sidemen in his band (and others) made upper-middle-class incomes, and the leaders did very well. Today, someone like Wynton, makes in excess of 2 million a year, and sidemen in his band have incomes in excess of $200k. Grover is one of the "pop" saxophone players who consistently receives the respect of other musicians; he can really play! His recording of Operatic arias "Aria" is beautiful and shows a sensitivity that so many pop saxists don't have. Highly recommended. My grandmother used to say: "if you don't have anything positive to say...." I wish I could share my fellow enthusiasts' enthusiasm for Johnny Lytle. I find his playing rudimentary and lacking in sophistication. There are various reasons why some players fade into obscurity; in this case the reason is obvious IMO. His improvising on "St Louis Blues" is almost like that of a young jazz student in music school; he doesn't make all the changes and resorts to the same blues scale over the changing harmonies. He may have "speed"; but, so what? He uses way too much sustain pedal which makes his playing sound "swimmy". And what is up with those xylaphone (bells) at the end of "Summertime"? Huh? OK, how do I really feel about .....? |
Rok, I can feel that this is going down a treacherous road (for an Internet discussion). ****That would be easy to do. There are not that many players that 'must be' mentioned in a history or comprehensivbe discussion of Jazz. A small percentage.**** Exactly!! The notion that a player like Lytle deserves to be mentioned more than Goodman is, with all due respect, somewhat absurd. ****In fact, I am not sure they played Jazz at all. They all took solos, and displayed great skill on their instrument, but I am not sure that much 'improvisation' was going on.**** 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. All this music was part of the melting pot, and part of the "continuum"; and it it certainly is "jazz". ****A lot of people were accepted as being things, that they were in fact, not!!**** I could not have said it better myself. Regards. |
Rok, we really have NO substantive disagreement, and I admire your passion for the music. Our main area of disagreement is in the absolutism of a comment that you have made several times to the effect that the "public decides who is great". If that were true then how do you explain the popularity of so much music that you, yourself, consider not worthy of respect; all the music's with a prefix? 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? I will give you a concrete example: ****I am not sure how much improvising they actually did**** If you understood a little more about the nuts and bolts it would be perfectly clear to you that they are improvising. How on earth would that be a negative? You may still not like the music but it would at least bring you one step closer to acknowledging that it is jazz. It may still not fit your definition of jazz, but remember it is only YOUR definition. And BTW, the great jazz players would be the first to admit that jazz really is like a "6 lane highway"; it ALL goes into the stew pot. |
****Is it that, they can't get what's in their head to come out of the instrument**** Exactly. They don't feel they have the technical mastery of their instrument (yet) to express the musical concepts that they "hear" in their heads; to translate them from the abstract to the concrete. These guys (most musicians) were/are always striving to grow as instrumentalists; it's a never ending process. That's the part of music and musicianship (the "nuts and bolts") that is seldom understood by the public. "Reputable" professions such as doctor, lawyer, etc. are known to require an incredible amount of study and preparation for many years; not only does it require even more than that to be an accomplished musician, it doesn't ever stop. |
Welcome, Justin. Ah, Charlie Mariano! One of my very favorite alto players. Here he is on one of my very favorite records: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bDJ75vcmVKY&feature=plpp&p=ALGLx1orRGw4W8XHYz9KFo_OtzUPthUNch |
The story that Diz told was that at his wife's birthday celebration a couple of dancers fell on his horn and bent it. He played it that night anyway, bent and all, and in spite of the fact that it was now harder to play he liked the sound. He then commissioned a trumpet with an upturned bell and the rest is history. BTW, the trumpet player on that clip is not Dizzy. I guess it's time for the 3rd installment of the "Lobotomy Award". Who can name the trumpet player? As always, NO CHEATING! And to make things really interesting (in case someone cheats) whoever can name the saxophone player also wins the "No blues, no Jazz" prize. |
Fabulous! It really doesn't get a whole lot better than that; thanks for the clip. Phil Woods is fantastic and Tom Harrell is without a doubt one of the unsung heroes of the trumpet; a beautiful player. Checkout his flugelhorn playing sometime; he has an unusually introspective and warm sound on flugelhorn. Great clip! |
Great tune, Nica's Dream; aka Orpheus' W..... nah, I better not ;-). Thanks for sharing. Came across this when listening to Nica's Dream. Check out Blue Mitchell's solo; holy cow! If you want to get geeky, check out 1:26. He plays this little motif, repeats it transposed to fit the changing harmony and then the magic happens at 1:29 with the most unexpected, strange but perfect note choice. These guys were brilliant. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=73pex5SGd0Y BTW, there were no takers, but the trumpet player on the "Bebop" clip was Jon Faddis; from his tribute to Dizzy album. |
Rok, with all due respect, and I blame my apparent lack of clarity, you're not getting it (my point). ****Based on your argument, Maurice Andre could have been the greatest Jazz trumpet player in history. **** My argument does not suggest that in the least. ****BTW, I would say that the opinions on this thread are much more 'justified' and 'backed up', than those on ANY OTHER THREAD on the entire Audiogon site.**** And who, pray tell, is the reason for that? ;-) |
No "teaching points" offered, Rok; just trying to offer a perspective that I feel will enhance the listening experience. You see, from my perspective, the problem is that you and others want to be able to make proclamations about what is "the best", "the worst", "empty", "not jazz" etc. based only on personal likes and dislikes, and then when there is disagreement and the comment is challenged no substantive argument is made for why the original proclamation should stand. Every single time (well, probably not EVERY, but close) that I have disagreed or agreed with the merit of a particular artist or recording I have offered specific and detailed reasons why, with specific examples that are not rooted in opinion and emotional reaction only. Example: if a player is not making the changes of a tune, there is really very little room for disagreement. Why you or anyone else should feel more offended, provoked, or whatever you want to call it than someone who disagrees with a proclamation of "this is the best" is beyond me. But, you are right, I don't just talk. That's the problem; there's too much that is simply talk with little purpose other than self gratification. I don't consider that a discussion. ****I guess it boils down to which is more important to the consumer. Since most of us wouldn't know 'nuts & bolts' if they fell on us. :) In my field, we would call it being schooled in the military arts. Just having a lot of men and weapons is not enough. You must know when and how to deploy them.**** As usual, you make my point; in more ways than one. You can't have it both ways. There IS a tendency to dismiss the importance of the nuts and bolts (man, am I starting to regret using that term a while back!), and that IS usually accompanied with the implication that because someone does "have a lot of men and weapons" that person "doesn't know when and how to deploy them". That attitude becomes a simple excuse and justification born out of some insecurity, for not "having enough men and weapons". It's very easy to always fall back on "well, it's what I like, so that's enough". But, enough for what? What's the point of your "reviews" if your comments can't be backed up with more than just opinion and expressions of what you happen to like? Tell me then, at what point is it OK to point out that the alto saxophone referred to in a posted clip is not an alto at all, but a tenor? That by any reasonable standard, when judging the merit of a performance, the fact that the tempo of a tune slows down dramatically beginning to end, it should be pointed out? That any jazz "aficionado" should know when a tune's chorus ends, and strive to be more than one of those clueless listeners in jazz clubs who start applauding before the player finishes his solo? The irony here is that these attitudes go completely counter to what the very players that you idolize hold dear; especially the commitment to always want to learn more and more about the music they love and that the best way to do so is to play with players that can challenge them? Anyway, I suspected that at some point these discussions would start to get a little too personal and tense for comfort. That is unfortunate |
******** If nothing else, your posts help folks keep an open mind**** Thanks, Newbee. That's really my motivation, its not about ego or being right. There is so much more that can be learned about this great art form and music in general; the little that has been touched upon, arguments and all, is just scratching the surface. And the truth is that for musicians there is value in understanding and not losing sight of why certain music elicits passion in listeners no matter what it's technical merit may or may not be. Rok, I truly admire your passion for this music. It's obvious that you connect with what matters most, the emotional side of it; that's a hell of a lot more than many on this site can claim. As O-10 likes to say: "Enjoy the music". This one's for you; gives me chills every time: http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=TRUjr8EVgBg But, he should fire his piano tuner. Ah, shit! I did it again, that nuts and bolts thingy; I just can't help myself :^) |
Rok, there comes a time when one has to simply stop pulling punches in the interest of civility and good will and just say what one is feeling. This sparring and chest thumping is really getting old; I, for one, am done with it. Why you feel the need to make some of these idiotic statements is beyond me: ****As usual, The Frogman missed the boat.**** Do you really think that is true? Really? It obviously eluded you, but the challenge from O-10 was not to name what was my or your favorite "Summertime", but which "swept HIM away" while providing the hint that it would be unlikely to guess which it was. So, by way of sleuthing I made my conclusion. We may disagree about Price vs Callas, and I could expound on why you are simply mistaken, but like I said, it's really getting tiresome; and frankly, I don't think it would matter what I said, you are so entrenched in your views and rigid ideas. After reading your posts for quite some time now certain patterns have become obvious: you are too quick to react, you have difficulty dealing with middle ground (gray areas) as opposed to black or white, you fail to see how you contradict you own forceful proclamations, and you are (or choose to be) completely oblivious to your own biases re music and artists and the reasons that you deem them meritorious or not. I could go much deeper into that last one, but it is way too sensitive and inflammatory a subject for me to go any further. Let's just say that you have been quite transparent about this, and as my last submission for The Lobotomy Award contest :-), i will say that obvious hints are in the first sentence of this paragraph. It is unfortunate when positive and stimulating endeavors come to a point such as this. As I have always said, I admire your passion for the music and always (apparently I was mistaken) felt that you were a great candidate for possibly expanding your horizons about music by hearing a different viewpoint. Unlike every other time that we have had disagreements and things have gotten a bit heated, there will be no olive branch. |
You may find this video interesting; it ties together a few themes covered in this thread: the saxophone, Johnny Hodges, Frank Wess and his recent passing, and instrument repair technicians and their love for the instruments. My saxophone repair technician is the great Tomoji Hirakata in NYC. He was also Frank Wess' technician and I happened to be in Tomoji's shop when Frank brought in Johnny Hodges' alto (which he then owned) for an overhaul. It was easily the most beautiful saxophone that I have ever seen, and to hold and play it for a few moments was an experience that I will be never forget; to think of all the amazing music that Hodges made on that horn defies description. Tomoji made this video of part of the overhaul process (with some commentary by Frank) not only as a tribute to Hodges, but as a tribute to the instrument itself. It's an opportunity to appreciate the unique beauty of this particular saxophone and also to get a close-up look at the mechanical complexity of Adolf Sax's creation. Enjoy. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ad_NFvmyPvA&feature=c4-feed-u |
