Jazz for aficionados
Just wanted to add a couple of thoughts to Learsfool's excellent comments about conductors; which I agree with. The nuances of the issue may be lost on those who don't have personal experience in this area. Lest anyone misunderstand, there ARE fine and extremely talented young(ish) conductors like (in addition to the ones mentioned) Alan Gilbert (NY Phil and a violinist), Nezet-Seguin (Philadelphia), Franz Welser-Most (Cleveland) among others. The role and importance of a first rate conductor to the success of an orchestra and it's performances should not be underestimated. It is the conductor who shapes the performance of a work and can make the difference between a performance that is lackluster and one that has musical meaning by way of being able to project his own personal vision of the music; but, perhaps even more importantly, having the technique to convey that vision in a way that makes sense to the players. A good conductor will convey that personal vision while at the same time allow some room (to varying degrees) for the individual player's vision; and allow a "relationship" between the player and the boss. An inferior inexperienced conductor will (at best), and as Learsfool points out, try to keep an overly tight grip on things and get in the way of good music making; or (at worst), simply create a musical mess. One of the most interesting aspects of this issue is that one shouldn't be fooled by APPPARENTLY great baton technique. Just as with some of the players (any genre) that have been discussed here, some conductors simply have THE THING. That hard to describe ability to convey their musician vision to the players in a meaningful way in a way that transcends the usual criteria. This ability is often tied to having (or not) a sense of being relaxed and comfortable with their own physicality. I often get the sense when playing for bad conductors that what they could benefit the most from is dance lessons; they are stiff, there is no flow to their gestures. Conversely, some conductors can literally put their arms down and the sense of pulse they still generate is amazing; they have THE THING. I will mention some conductors that I have played for in various orchestras not as name-dropping but to hopefully make the point; also keep in mind, and this is VERY important, that some conductors excel with some repertoire and not others. One of my favorite conductors is Neeme Jarvi. Jarvi is unusually comfortable with body movements and I love the fact that he put his arms down and with a simple gesture of the shoulder give a due or make a crucial musical point. He practically dances on the podium. Zdenek Macal, Ricardo Muti and James Levine are others who are able to connect with the orchestra in a way that is secure in a way that is difficult to explain. On the other hand a conductor like Lorin Maazel, who has simply unbelievable baron technique, can leave one totally cold and uninspired. In those way, they are all brilliant musicians. The most brilliant of all (in my experience) is Gergiev; but my experience underscores the importance of the repertoire involved. If someone made me pick the greatest musical experience I have ever had as a player it has to be playing Mussorgsky's "Pictures At An Exibition" under Gergiev. It was unbelievable how connected he was to the music (Russian, of course) and how well he conveyed what he wanted to the players even if his style is often completely unorthodox. On the other hand the "Bolero" previously posted shows how sometimes a particular conductor and certain repertoire just don't mix; and also highlights the one most simple and important aspect of a conductor's role: choice of tempo. The tempo of that Bolero is just too slow, with the end result that he players have difficulty with their deceptively difficult solos, and IMO robs the music of the feeling of what a bolero is all about. Personal opinion to be sure but here are some other versions to make my point, and notice in which version the solos are the most "in the pocket". Too slow: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ODeNHRtVNO4 Too fast: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l5zyYF6_eyY Just right. IMO, this is the perfect tempo for "Bolero": http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UPnWR1FgrBU BTW, these are just versions available with video. Not my favorite recorded Bolero's at all. Enjoy. |
Funny, I always associate Begin The Beguine with Artie Shaw. I believe it was in the late 30's or so and the first popular version after the Broadway musical it was from (like most of the popular tunes of the time) and became a hit for Shaw. Great tune with very unusual form. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zNcPnEc99UE |
Just in case my very short comment's meaning wasn't clear, just wanted to congratulate you for being able to identify Morgan. Which relates to some of my earlier comments re players' clear and identifiable personalities; some have it, some don't. Morgan had a certain swagger in his playing that was unique. Regards. |
O-10, we have no disagreement. You are correct that Cugat's version stays closer to the Tropical element in the tune; Shaw's is much closer to the classic big band sound of that period. My point was simply that I associate the tune (and I think most would also) with Artie Shaw; not a question of right or wrong. I must have played Shaw's version a hundred times while "paying my dues" as a youngster working what was left of the "big band circuit" in NYC years ago. Now, what makes a version a "classic"? The one that was a big hit and propelled Shaw to stardom, or the one that came later and subjectively has more of the Latin flavor that the tune suggests? I don't know, and probably has most to do with our individual definition of "classic". Ultimately not important, but always good to know the real origins of tunes. Regards. |
****but a person has to be able to know it when they hear it. Think about it. **** Only if the person cares about attaching a definition of genre to the music as opposed to caring mainly about wether the music speaks to him/her as being good music or bad; that was the whole point of my post. It is not the music's responsibility to scream at the listener what it is. Growth as a listener (if that is a goal to the particular listener) happens when there is a willingness to learn more and more about the art so as to become a more discerning listener. I love Bluegrass! It is fun, and can groove and even swing. Thanks for the clip. ****I think this clip could meet your definition.**** Not at all. Good Bluegrass has only one of the ingredients in my definition (for whatever THAT is worth): improvisation. But, "a high level of interaction between the players, and a high level of rhythmic and harmonic sophistication in that interaction" ? No way! The rhythmic interplay is simplistic with a simple "1,2,3,4" feel, and harmonically very "inside" with very basic harmony. This is not a criticism; simply the nature of the music. I agree that the recording quality of the Herbie Hancock clip leaves something to be desired; there is some audible distortion but I certainly wouldn't call it muffled. Regardless, I find it more than acceptable and I am not concerned with the quality of the recorded sound (as long as it is acceptable) as much as the quality of the music and in that regard it absolutely burns. ****I think they are better examples of the this type music.**** I would love to hear them. Please share. Thanks for the comments. |
Rok, I'm trying, really trying. ****You cannot state 'your' definition of Jazz, and then have a discussion with others, using 'your' definition as a given fact. What you found lacking in the bluegrass piece, even by 'your' definition, was a matter of degree, judgement or opinion.**** Sigh! OK, here we go again. I'll explain point by point: First of all, point out to me, please, where I used my definition "as a given fact?. Now, you posted a Bluegrass clip and stated: ****I think this clip could meet your definition.**** YOU alluded to MY definition, and made an assumption based on YOUR interpretation of MY definition. I disagreed with the premise of that assumption; you misunderstood my definition or don't understand the relevance of it to the clip you posted. Moreover, I graciously qualified the use of my own definition in my comments about the clip by stating: "My definition (FOR WHATEVER THAT IS WORTH)". Again, kindly explain how any of this constitutes claiming that my definition is "a given fact". ****What you found lacking in the bluegrass piece.....**** OK, do I really need to spell this one out? Fine. Not only did I say that I love Bluegrass, I clearly stated: ++++This is not a criticism; simply the nature of the music.++++ I found nothing lacking in the Bluegrass piece, and made it clear. It is Bluegrass; it is not a rhythmically nor harmonically sophisticated music. It is not supposed to be, and to try to make it so would make it lose part of what makes it good; I hope you can understand that. ****even by 'your' definition, was a matter of degree, judgement or opinion.**** OK, I already pointed out that I found nothing lacking. Nonetheless, let's look at the points that I made in the comparisons of Bluegrass to more rhythmically and harmonically advanced musics. "A matter of judgement or opinion"? Nope, not so. Here is where the subjectivist's argument falls apart. If you understand harmony and rhythm (from more than just a rudimentary standpoint) it's easy to understand this distinction. This is not a matter of opinion. We've been here before, and why there is such an aversion to accepting this is beyond me. OK, you thought that Herbie's music had no dynamic range. OK, fine. So what? Is that the only thing you can say about it? Do you honestly mean to tell me that the amazing grooves and fabulous solos (especially Herbie's) don't deserve acknowledgement? ****The music was muffled because it had no dynamic range. The difference between the highest and lowest notes.**** Huh?! Please explain what on earth the "difference between the highest and lowest notes" have to do with dynamic range. Herbie Mann?!? I like Herbie Mann, but as a comparison to The Headhunters? I am speechless.... ****Whenever I see the name of a so-called genre with a hypen, I always ask, why is that needed?**** Why not? Isn't this talking-point getting a little old. Of course there are countless examples of music with hyphenated genre names; so what? There are plenty of examples of great music in these hyphenated genres; just as there are plenty of examples of lame music with non-hyphenated names (the steak analogy). I urge you to understand the irony in your insistence on this stance. You love a music that is, first and foremost, about spontaneity, change, forward-looking attitudes, open-mindedness, and much more. The real question should be: why does one need to be so protective of "the name". To quote O-10: "Rok, I've got more than one concept. Enjoy the music." |
Thanks for clarifying, I thought I remembered you saying that you played trumpet. It was probably because of this comment that I misinterpreted, ****I was led to Mr. Harrell in the mid eighties by a trumpet player/teacher who worked....**** and your affinity for Dave Douglas. Anyway, nice Howard McGhee clips; thanks. |
One of my favorite noise makers from the '70's; brilliant keyboardist and composer. http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=plpp&v=KOFs40ekTV0&list=PL198F268D6B1CBC21 |
To the extent that affection for someone can be experienced via dialogue (?) on a forum such as this, Rok, I admit to a sense of it towards your passion for music; I have said so on several occasions. I have "met" few individuals on these forums with the passion that you demonstrate for an admittedly fairly narrow slice of the musical landscape. That would be perfectly fine, but the main obstacle to having reasonable dialogue, debate, whatever we want to call it is that you don't let that very passion for that music stand on it's own. It's like the old saying: "let her go, if it was meant to be, she'll be back (or something like that)". The music that you so love does not need so much of your "protection". Not only does it not need it (as if your "protection" mattered one iota, anyway) it narrows your own horizons and, ironically, violates some of the important tenets of that very music: open mindedness, creativity, forward-looking attitude, evolution, growth, honor the past but always look to the future; THAT is what jazz is. It has been pointed out to you on several occasions that the very musicians that you idolize would look down at the attitude that you demonstrate sometimes. Doesn't that say something to you? Why the arrogance of opinion that you demonstrate? Time and time again you make proclamations about this or that being "better" or "worse", or at worse making comments like those you just made to Acman3 that are totally uncalled for and insulting. He has made some really great contributions to this thread and and deserves better than that. I would respectfully suggest that an apology is in order. I remember a comment that you made early on in this thread that has always stuck with me; something to the effect that somehow it was inconceivable that someone with a different opinion from yours might "have some insight into music that you don't". Why is that so inconceivable to you? You are severely limiting yourself by not being open to the idea that some may, in fact, have certain insights that you don't. Again, those very musicians that you revere will be the first to tell you that the very reason they got to the point of being worthy of reverence is that they were humble in their knowledge that there is always a lot to learn, and that there are many that do have insights that they didn't. So, I encourage you to take a deep breath, calm down and don't blow an opportunity to grow as a music lover and there is a great deal to learn; a little humility is always a good thing. Having said all that, Wynton is not God, and I will dare to criticize him. He is a great instrumentalist and a great ambassador for jazz; but he has added little to the evolution of jazz. His undeniable and great contribution is of the "museum" type. "Layla" with Clapton? Please, are you serious? I would respectfully suggest that you are letting your admiration for the man and everything that he represents influence your perception of his musical relevance. So, I would suggest that everyone take a deep breath, understand that it is the very passion that we feel for music that causes us to act irrationally (I include myself), and get back to the business of sharing great music and hopefully growing in the process. In the hope that we will be able to do that, I will post what was going to be my next post before I read some of the above. |
Chazro, agree about Woods; one of the greats. BTW, he was married to Charlie Parker's wife. I posted this a while ago and think it fell through the cracks. Interesting look at his life as a jazz musician with some great commentary: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6SJxmCzYpoo |
Glad you decided to hang in there. ****you seem to be sayin that 'evolution' must mean improvement.**** Absolutely not, and I would say that "improvement" in the "evolution" of any art is very rare!!! And not only is this at the core of our little cyber-soap opera it is one of the main issues that art lovers (any art) grapple with, consciously or not, especially in our time in history. I know some may think that I get "preachy" about this stuff, but this perspective is missing for many and it is KEY! : One cannot judge art outside of its rightful historical context. Why? Because art always reflects the times; it is the RESULT of the time during which it was created. How good a job art does of reflecting the times is, ultimately, what determines wether it is good art or not. THIS, WETHER WE LIKE THAT PARTICULAR ART OR NOT!!!!! And chances are that if we don't like the art of a particular era, what we are saying is that we don't like the era. That is why there is always good art in any era; there will always be good artists (it is part of the human condition) expressing their reflection of the era. Wether we like what that era stands for, is a different matter. THAT is why the music of ANY era, hyphenated name or not, IS relevant and important; and why Wynton's music, while good, will never be as good nor as relevant as Satchmo or Ellington. It is why late Trane and "Bitches Brew" (to use your examples) are great art; like it or not. So, for this listener, what is the point of listening to Wynton when I can listen to Loui and Ellington who created that music as an expression and reflection of THEIR time; a time that gave birth to that music. The current time does not inspire that music; that is what I meant when I alluded to Wynton's music as "museum". Wynton's music looks back to a different era, and for that reason it is not as good; and not in the theoretical sense either, it is simply not on the same high level of execution. Look, no one is saying that it is not good nor worth listening to, and kudos need to be given for keeping a certain flame alive and reminding those who are TOO willing to forget the past; but, again, when there's only so many hours in the day, what is the point when one can listen to Loui, Clifford, Morgan, Dizzy, Miles, and, and, and....? ITS BEEN DONE BETTER BEFORE. Or, Dave Douglas (thanks Acman3) who looks forward, not so much backwards. This takes us to the next point: ****The guy on clarinet!! Wow! I am somewhat surprised that you do see it. If I may respectfully suggest, sometimes maybe you are a little too analytical. Stop thinking about it, and just let it wash over you. **** First of all, I think you meant to say "surprised you (DONT) see it". Of course I see it. Too analytical? I appreciate the respect, but no way; not analytical enough! Hang out with some musicians sometime and talk music; you think I am analytical.......!? You think your eyes glaze over NOW ?! Respectfully, it is you who don't see it. You always make the mistake of assuming that analysis precludes letting the music "wash over you"; that it has to be one or the other. Just the opposite is true, and you don't seem to want to get a handle on why being able to appreciate how, for instance, Santana is NOTHING like Headhunters, in the ways that matter: THE MUSIC, not just the instruments used. That's pretty sophomoric, if you don't mind my saying so. Sure, Victor Goines sounds terrific on the "Layla" clip, so what? Have you listened to Jimmy Hamilton or Narney Bigard lately? I guarantee you that if you ask Victor how he would compare his own playing to Hamilton's ot Bigard's he would tell you that he feels like an imposter. So..... Look, most great musicians have one thing in common: humility. Humility about their own talents and place in music history; they are always willing to learn. Why should the listener be any different? |
I have no idea what a comparison between Weather Report and Wynton Marsalis' retro-jazz demonstrates or proves; but, anyway, re the notion that only music from the 50's and 60's painting a picture: One of the great things about Wynton's LCO is some of the great individual talent in the band. One of the stars of the band is Ted Nash; one of the most talented individuals that I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with. This is his music; and it does precisely the above: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wftP__VvXig |
Rok, you are without a doubt (allowing for the vagaries of the printed word composed on line, of course) one of the most arrogant individuals that I have ever come across. Time and time again I show you the respect that you don't show others, by praising your passion for music while at the same time encouraging you ( and showing you how) to expand your horizons. You lash out, you insult and you posture about a subject about which you have, in the scheme of things, very limited and pedestrian knowledge and understanding; with nary even and occasional "hmmm, I don't quite see it that way, but let me think about it". One would think that offered the opinions of someone who has played music since age five, has spent years studying every aspect of it and has done nothing else professionally for forty years that a person would do at least that. Incredibly, you seem unaware of the path that you leave behind you at every turn, not just in this thread; while continuing to blame everyone except yourself for the garbage left behind. As far as this thread goes, you are, and have been looking at the proverbial gift horse in the face. Unfortunately, your admitted "blocks" apparently go well beyond the subjects of "fusion" and music in general. But, alas, musicians are born-teachers; psychologist is above my pay-grade, in spite of what O-10 may think :-) I may be "incorrigible" by your definition of the word, but man, you are out of your league and don't know it; or just like to keep stirring the pot (Mariah Carrey, Boys2men, seriously?) Now the Wynton clip: "like it better than the WR". I am tempted to say: "You're kidding, right?" Obviously, the last several posts have been a complete waste of time; too bad, for you, really. I will not repeat everything that I tried to share before about the pointlessness of that kind of comparison. Nonetheless, some comments about Wynton: Wynton sounds fabulous; beautiful warm trumpet sound, nice rhythmic feel, and excellent command of the vocabulary of that kind of jazz. Notice I said "sounds"; that is key. Now, some insight about (to quote you) "the finer points of jazz" that may elude the "unwashed masses", and why, at the end of the day, I would much rather listen to others (Louis, Warren Vache) playing that style of music: Notice how he plays phrases that are not tied together in a way that "tells a story from beginning to end", he doesn't have a "vision" (O-10) of the whole of his improvised composition. He says this, then this, then that. The great players always gave the listener a sense of the big picture of what they were saying; not in spurts. And when they did play "in spurts" they connected it all with the right SILENCE (this was one of miles' calling cards). Notice how little silence there is in his solo; he has to fill up very beat, and there is a sense that he doesn't know quite know to end his solo; when to stop (sound familiar? :-). Good command of vocabulary does not a great author make. |
You may find this interesting. One of the icons of the saxophone world plays and talks to young musicians about being a jazz player, the music, the study; and gives insights into his personal life including being married to Charlie Parker's widow. I think Rok will find some of his comments particularly interesting. And what a great player! http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6SJxmCzYpoo |
A quick follow up to my comments re Wynton's jazz playing, albeit a very personal one subject to one's interpretation and usage of words: he often causes me to think (feel): WOW! Seldom, to say: AAH! (as in: aah! I get it, I hear what you're trying to say). However, when he speaks, and as Learsfool points out. and Rok has been saying, there is probably no better teacher. That does a great deal for the preservation of the art form, and to that extent I will concede, does a lot to promote the evolution of jazz. But, again, as a stylist, he is very derivative; unlike Miles, Shaw, Clifford, Morgan, and other greats. Those are the players that make me want to listen to their stories. But, man, can Wynton play the trumpet; amazing! |
And BTW, that solo is a model of telling a story in a clear, logical, and concise way. Just a few bars, no excess, and gives a clear sense of direction; we KNOW he's going somewhere without knowing exactly where. It can stand on its own as a melody just as much as the melody of the song itself; and improvised on the spot. How do great jazz players do that?! That's art! And you know what? Does the great Phil Woods shun a pop tune by this young pop artist? No, the genre doesn't matter to a great musician, he recognizes a good tune with a good chord progression and is able to bring his best game even if outside his home turf. Gotta love it! |
O-10, that John McLaughlin/L Shankar clip was fantastic; I loved it. Talk about two players being locked into each other musically; and clearly enjoying it. Thanks for sharing. This is McLaughlin with another favorite guitarist Paco De Lucia: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls5Zmf4sCmo |
Learsfool, how true, and I know that scenario well. More and more I show up to a freelance job where, first of all, I look around and ask myself "who are all these people?" (young!!; or perhaps more accurately: I'm getting old!!). There are are so many truly fantastic young players fresh out of conservatory who can play anything with accuracy, great pitch, and even good understanding of the repertoire; but, somehow, they tend to sound more alike than not, and don't have the experience to get them out of a musical "jam". As Rok so astutely said once "music is not about perfection". Unfortunately, given the current state of the BUSINESS of music these young players have to start from a place of perceived "perfection" to stand a chance of getting to the point later in their careers where they can express more individuality. |
Fabulous! Isn't it amazing how the list of great players doesn't seem to end. I first became acquainted with Sahib Shihab from his work on the recordings of the Francy Boland/Kenny Clarke Big Band; probably the greatest of the European big bands and composed of many American players living in Europe. Notice who else is on this recording: Benny Bailey, one of the most exciting trumpet players ever (Less MacCann "Compared To What"). Great stuff and thanks for sharing. |
Nice, Acman3; you did it again, finding yet another great player that we hadn't covered. As a trumpet player yourself, I am sure you notice the similarity of tone to Dizzy's. He was one of the first trumpet beboppers and I know his playing from some of Charlie Parker's records. There is a Bird compilation titled "Bird In Time" that features McGhee and includes some amazing interviews and commentary about Bird that is worth having. Thanks for sharing. |
****Turned out it was Phil Woods!! Grrrrrrrrr. **** I can't resist. Why Grrrrrrr? ****He can play.**** You think?! ****Beautiful tone and phrasing**** In the interest of the never ending discussion about the benefits of fine tuning one's listening skills, I guarantee you that you can play me ANYTHING that Phil Woods ever did and after two measures, I would be able to tell you that it was Phil. Is that a benefit? You bet; well, at the very least, you wouldn't have to get up from your chair to see who was playing :-) |
Great stuff, Acman3. Sophisticated Giant was one of his first recordings after his return to the states from Europe. The live clip with Kenny Drew is wonderful and appropriate given a discussion in another thread about pop tunes as jazz vehicles. I saw Dexter at the Vanguard a few times in the late seventies/early eighties and they were unforgettable experiences. Thanks for sharing. |
Nice clip Acman3; lots of famous faces in that crowd. In order of appearence: Frank (juiced and showing surprisingly bad time clapping his hands :-) Betty White Skitch Henderson Ernest Borgnine Ella Tony Bennett Jean Stapleton Barry Manilow Merv Griffin Chris Isaak Frankie Valli (?) Carol Channing Sidney Poitier Bea Arthur Those were the famous ones that I spotted. Now for the important ones :-) Henry Mancini (piano/leader) Jack Sperling (drums) Cootie Williams (trumpet) Conrad Gozzo (trumpet) Pete Candoli (trumpet) Dick Nash (trombone) Bill Watrous (trombone) Dan Block (alto sax) Plas Johnson ? (tenor) |
****This is the ONLY thing you have ever said, ever, that I just don't get**** Wow, high praise indeed! But, I think you are quoting someone else; although I do feel that Stravinsky is one of the great composers and Mozart certainly is also. ****You want to compare him in a manner to show he has weakness, let's try Hubbard, Morgan, Miles. Not Lester Bowie!**** I did; reread my post. ****He may have broken every 'rule' in classical composition, but, its's a nice piece of music.**** Within a very narrow scope perhaps, but not even close to breaking every rule; that wouldn't happen for about 200 years. With all due respect, when you understand that you will understand Stravinsky. ****I meant his peers, not you personally**** Of course that is what I meant. I referred to his peers; I have no personal stake in this. ****Why is Jazz the only genre where the music has to undergo constant change or so-called 'progress'. Folks have no problem listening to Bach, Mozart etc... for centuries!!**** Who says jazz is the only genre that undergoes constant change? A better question would be: when one considers how much jazz changed from its beginning to its "end according to Rok", why would it stop changing? Additionally, are you also saying that Stravinsky is a figment of our imagination? IOW, who says Classical hasn't changed. That is the point; art changes and evolves. Without Mozart (and others) there would not have been a Beethoven, and on and on to, yes, Stravinsky and beyond. ****Listening to Cab Calloway do 'minnie the moochie' on pbs as I type. It don't get any better. How you gonna 'improve' it?**** Well, to quote you, I could simply say "You can't be serious!". But, I think you've inadvertently hit the nail on the head; I think this is where you get hung up. You seem to always think in terms of "improvement". Evolution doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "improvement". You also seem to prefer the term "progress" to simply evolution. Improvement and progress are very personal definitions and don't reflect what art naturally does regardless of one's personal preferences. "Music is the sole domain in which man realizes the present.” ― Igor Stravinsky “To listen is an effort, and just to hear is no merit. A duck hears also.” ― Igor Stravinsky |
Now things are getting interesting! Now, we are getting into some of the more elusive and fascinating aspects of music and it's appreciation. Firstly, and for the sake of clarity, let's have context (and forgive me for quoting myself): ****Now, I would rather listen to Lee Morgan's brand of story telling, but that's not the point. **** I am not about to run out and buy Lester Bowie records that I don't already have (only a couple). My point was simply that I respect what he is doing, and that in at least one essential element (story telling) he, subjectively, strikes a chord in me while Wynton strikes a different kind of chord; a chord that, at the end of the day, is just not as interesting for me. What do I mean by that?: Learsfool, thank you for your kind words; the feeling is mutual. Now, I don't like to frame my comments with my professional experiences, but sometimes it is unavoidable. One of the most important lessons that I have learned having spent a career (forty years; yikes!) living a rather schizophrenic professional life of vacillation between the classical and the commercial/jazz music worlds is the simple fact that in spite of the obvious common threads, the stereotypes of the judgmental attitudes that one side (genre) sometimes holds toward the other are simply that: stereotypes that are easily shot down by the simple fact that, when all is said and done, it is the feeling of the music (not the tone and not the technical skill) that matters most. Obviously, in some genres fully developed and beautiful tone and a CERTAIN TYPE of precision is necessary; while in others, looseness and even a certain kind of irreverence towards the more traditional elements of the craft is the order of the day. Still, even in our classical music world, the feeling of what we play is of paramount importance even if has to occur within fairly controlled parameters. Personally, I admire jazz players who are able to abandon all decorum and simply and convincingly express emotion or tell a story, wether it be via humor, theatricality or intellectuality. I think Bowie does that. Did he "push the boundaries of jazz" as you ask? I think so. His sense of humor and unpredictability were undeniable and there was a certain theatricality to his music which, ironically, was a throwback to an era when jazz (as Rok likes to point out) was expected to entertain; as opposed to the character that much of it has taken on currently, as that of a kind of museum piece. Rhythmic feeling is THE most important aspect of music; especially jazz. Personally, I don't think the point can be argued. At its most basic and simplistic level, the obvious proof of that assertion is that the first musical instrument was the drum. How deeply "in the pocket" a player plays is (I think) what separates the men from the boys. Of course, that can also mean a player's use of space (silence) and his overall timing (as in the case of Bowie) of the seemingly nonsensical vocalizing and bastardization of the usual trumpetisms. Another irony of this discussion is in Wynton's reverence for Louis Armstrong's music. If anyone has to ask why that is, simply listen for just how deeply in the pocket he played; it was incredibly rhythmically grounded. I am not sure it can be explained much beyond that, but it is there to hear and feel. Bowie's playing has been compared to Armstrong's in that regard; hence the irony. This is interesting commentary by Bill Cosby about Bowie. But, most importantly, listen to Bowie's playing as the clip ends and fades out. The guy could play; by any standard, traditional or otherwise. To be able to hide that fact so effectively for the sake of his musical message is art by any standard; if, arguably, bizarre. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G0JF05quIJA |
Oh, and let's not forget our educational system. But, you know what?.. I really don't want to go any further down this road. Mea culpa for taking that detour; it was pertinent (in my mind) about the discussion about the music. This is a thread about music and this topic is most definitely a provocative one. So please consider this a retraction of my comment. But, if you must...fire away. |
****I will have to do a lot more listening to Bowie, before I can do anymore talking about him. I think I might like this guy. I dismissed the first clip sent by Acman3. It was not representative and obviously done in jest. **** Does this mean you did a lot more listening and still don't like him? :-) ****But this is not about Bowie or Marsalis. It's about what they each represent. **** Correct! ****I am sure he would have given anything to have had Wynton's career, playing the music Wynton plays.**** ****I think the wiki page did mention something about 833,000 dollars per, U.S., for the Lincoln Center gig. That's called cutting to the chase. All else is moot.**** Wrong! First of all, as I have said, I don't consider Bowie to be a favorite player by any stretch. But, to your comment: with all due respect you just don't understand they mindset of musicians like Bowie. In fairness, there is no way that you could. I have known and worked with musicians steeped in this and similar genres (avant garde, "downtown", free, etc.), and I assure you that your take on their motivation and their view of their own place within the art world is way off. Most of these guys have an elitist counter-establishment, counter-culture mindset that genuinely eschews the kind of "success" that you refer to. They are incredibly committed to their "message". Like their music, their attitude about some of this is intended to turn traditional values and expectations upside down. I think that your tendency to always go to the issue of "jealousy" of this kind says more about your mindset than theirs, and may be part of the reason that you react to the non-traditional the way that you do. ****Rap does not reflect American cluture, if that even exists. Rap reflects the depravity and spiritual poverty of inner city America. Whenever it is played / heard, it creates an aura of great sadness.**** It most certainly does; although I agree about "depravity and spiritual poverty". Depravity and spiritual poverty that has blinded an entire generation in the inner city to some of the real reasons for the economic poverty. Sadly, these rap "artists" have become their artistic heroes instead of so many real heroes which we have discussed in this thread. What a waste! Additionally, the embrace of the rap/hip hop culture outside of the inner city reflects so much about our culture ("society"; if you prefer). A culture that wants simplistic art that requires little involvement other than feeling the beat. In which attitude has become more important than substance (as Learsfool points out) and which has been trained to be obsessed with the issue of race to the extent that it is terrified of criticizing the gratuitous ugliness of the music for fear of being labeled racist. And btw, that influence extends well beyond our country. I just returned from a three week tour of Asia (NY Phil) and I was astounded at the pervasive influence of the hip hop culture in China, Japan and especially Korea. It is everywhere; the pop music, television and it's commercials and the attire of young people. Rap in Korean is something to experience :-). Lastly, thanks for pointing out to me that I like noise. Who knew? :-) |
No ruckus, Acman3; just healthy debate. Besides, what's wrong with a good healthy ruckus? :-) Otherwise we would be stuck talking about nothing but Bird, Monk and Wynton and those between. Keep it coming! http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=27QVenKmDBI&feature=plpp&list=PL64F164D56D514451 |
Excellent and thorough comments by Learsfool. I would add or expound on a couple of points: During the dress rehearsal it is usually the INTENTION to play a work from beginning to end without interruption. That is not always what happens as the conductor may still decide that a particular passage requires additional work. It is not necessarily a "let's play the whole thing no matter what" approach. Another thing that happens during a dress rehearsal is that it is often the first and only time that all the pieces on the program will be rehearsed in "concert order". This is very important since up to that point the works will probably have been rehearsed in a different order than what the audience will hear for time-management reasons and to make concessions to the soloist's schedule. Learsfool makes some important comments about conducting and rehearsal techniques and the different abilities of various conductors. The conductor/orchestra relationship is just that; a relationship. In fairness (to conductors), it should be pointed out that certain orchestras are notorious for and have reputations for being difficult for conductors to work with and do little to create an amicable working relationship with conductors. It is the job of a professional musician to work with a conductor, no matter his/her ability, in a way that will result in good music making. That doesn't always happen. Of course, as Learsfool correctly points out, some conductors make it difficult to impossible to do that and they reap what they sow. Young conductors, due to insecurity or otherwise, don't always respect or appreciate the incredible amount of experience that some of the older players in some orchestras have and don't understand the futility of trying to rule (conduct) with an iron fist. Still, as in any type of relationship, the best results are usually achieved by "taking the high road". Fundamentally, the way that a jazz group rehearses is not terribly different from that of an orchestra. If it is an established ensemble the players know each other's playing intimately and time-management is not an issue. If it was, for instance, Miles' rhythm section rehearsing for Dizzy's birthday party there was probably little to no rehearsal time put in other than a discussion of what tunes they would play with the possible exception of a special arrangement of "Happy Birthday" that one of them came up with while in the car on the way there. If the tunes to be played were "standards" (in the broad sense or "standard" for that group) there really is no need to rehearse since they all know the tunes and will probably follow the usual format of "play the head (melody), improvised solo's (order to be decided before hand or even while playing the tune, melody and out". If the rehearsals are for, say, a recording or live performance of new (or unfamiliar) material it will be written down as a formal "chart" since it could be a difficult and complex tune with unusual chord changes. Eventually, however, most groups will have the tune (and chord changes) memorized. It should be pointed out that as complex as some of these jazz tunes are, they are all relatively short compared to symphonic music (duh!) and they lend themselves much more readily to memorization. The language of jazz has certain "rules" about its performance that very experienced player understands. These are part of the tradition and makes it possible for players that don't play together on a regular basis to perform at a credible level. |
**** I have no Stravinsky on CD. :( Several on LP. Any recomendations on Rite of Spring performances?**** I knew I would eventually break you (down) :-) ****I think this music almost requires a visual component**** Hah! While it can certainly stand on its own, it was originally composed as music for a ballet. While the music is often credited for being the reason for the near-riot at the premier, it was the avant garde and very sexually suggestive (Lenny's comments) choreography that was mostly responsible. For recordings: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?gmusi&1369359822&read&keyw&zzrite=of=spring |
Rok, you may find this interesting: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FSJQwkBKKBo "Sacre" as the composer intended: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fsl3AGgHzGU |
Beethoven, in spite of all the brilliance, was a composer for who composing was a tedious process. It is well known and documented that he would often make revision after revision of a work or passage, and the sketches for a work would sometimes be three times as long as the final product. It can be fairly said that it was not an easy process for him; unlike a composer like Mozart for who composing was a seemingly effortless process and who would write down final drafts after conceiving the work (often very quickly) in his head. The difference in their respective outputs is probably further proof of this. I believe that is what Stravinsky meant with that comment. ****Too many pieces of music finish too long after the end.**** Igor Stravinsky |
Fantastic piece! It is really a theatrical work with music scored for seven instruments, and is essentially the story of Faust (in this case, a deserting soldier) and his pact with the devil. To understand the "jazz influence", and as always, it's all about context. When the work was composed (1918?) jazz was just beginning to take shape in America. Stravinsky had never actually heard any jazz but was given some written scores of "jazz" music brought from America by his friend Ernest Ansermet who also conducted the premier of "L'Histoire". Like most serious composers in any genre open to influences from unexpected sources he was intrigued by some of what he "saw" in the written scores without really fully understanding what it actually sounded like. What I am talking about is different from, for instance, the idea of Beethoven being able to "hear" in his head what his music would sound like even though he was deaf. In this case I refer to one of THE biggest challenges for composers and orchestrators and one which continues to the present time: how to notate the FEELING of jazz syncopation. Truth is, it really can't be done. The classic swing feel of jazz can only be approximated when notating jazz and is ultimately left up to the performer to realize it in a credible way. For the geeks, this is what it's about; all others skip to the end :-) : -Imagine simple, slow tempo (one beat per second), four beats to the measure music: "one, two, three, four" "one, two, three, four" (repeat several times while tapping your foot to that beat). -Now, while tapping that same beat, subdivide each beat into four equal subdivisions: "ONE (two, three, four), TWO (two, three, four), THREE (two, three, four), FOUR (two, three, four)". Repeat several times. -Now the fun part: do the same thing, but emphasize FOUR: "one (two, three, FOUR), two (two, three, FOUR), three (two, three, FOUR), four (two, three, FOUR)" That emphasized FOUR is the most basic way to describe classic jazz syncopation. The problem for composers trying to notate this is that "FOUR" is too close to the next beat, and if notated this way would sound very "square" (white dude on the dance floor square :-) ) -Now, think Frank Sinatra (same tempo as before) : "shoo BY doo BY doo (four, one) EX chang ING glan CE s stran GERS in THE night". Note that the emphasized subdivision has a different feeling than the previous example. In this case it is closer to when each beat is subdivided into threes (triplets) with the emphasis on the third subdivision: "one (two, THREE), two (two, THREE), three (two, THREE), four (two, THREE). Closer, but still not right; now the emphasis is a little too far from the next downbeat. That's the dilemma; you need something in between the two examples. So, most smart jazz composers often don't bother at all and notate the music with a simple duplet (in twos) subdivision and leave it up to the performer to find the correct feeling. Back to Stravinsky: In "L'Histoire" there are three "Dances", one of which Stravinsky titled "Ragtime". Ragtime, as we all know, was one of the earliest forms of "jazz". Listen to Stravinsky's "Ragtime" and you will note, besides the constantly changing time signatures (odd meter) and syncopation, a recurring musical figure like the above example of subdivision in fours, but this time in a much faster tempo: "da TA da TA da" First heard in the bassoon about thirty seconds into the "Ragtime". I guess one could say that was Stravinsky's idea of swinging his ass off :-) - |
