Anyhow, I feel pretty good tonight, sitting here drinking this wine and listening to Bach, and i think i've bailed myself out of dark for a while. Here i am and my walls soothe me, smooth me. That Bach, he was a motherfucker, what?
Cotrane: You assume too much about the education or lack of it in regard to the members at this site. The next time you post you might try sharing something other than your ignorance. I enjoy jazz, but not ignorance.
Dekay: I do not assume, nor have I commented on anyone's level of education. People can listen to whomever and whatever they choose. However, if someone suggests that jazz is nothing more than jerky music, then perhaps, just perhaps that warrants a bit more explanation. Last I heard, this was a forum for discussion, is it not?
And Dekay, it is spelled COLTRANE. Don't be ignorant...JUST KIDDING!
The best jazz musicians I ever met all had classical training and there is no question that classical music IS the most technically challenging. Show me any jazz musician who can compose or play counterpoint like Bach. Jazz musicians are imitators, of each other and of the classical genre. Seems like you have yet to complete your course on music appreciation.
Coltrane: Actually, yes you did clearly make that inference. However, since you are attempting to weedle out of it I have no "bone" to pick regarding your initial flame post. Your "weedle" is accepted. I once made a post with a somewhat nasty tone to it, yup. LOL. I like to listen to most kinds of music, as long as it has merit, and even listen to some that I don't like as much when my 14 year old godson hangs with me. My wife though, cannot stand to listen to "most" jazz as she finds it irritating. I am in the spare bedroom at this moment listening to the "Jazz Mandolin Project", that I just purchased today for a dollar at the flea, on a cheap mini system. My wife has a fairly vast knowledge of both popular and world music and jazz is just not her cup of tea as Gregorian chanting is not mine. The mandolin CD upon finish is interesting. Oh, and Coltrane was a typo, I just call people names instead clever things like that. David
hey dragon, save a glass for me. BTW, i'd give you a + vote for your last post. i'm with you: screw em' if they can't take a joke! dekay, my only known fellow-iowan on this sorry site: i'd give you 2+. oops, guess i can't do that. coltrane: i'm with dekay; chill out, 'cuz you're commin' on pretty strong for a newbie (or a lurker). but then audiogon apparently loves lurkers ("the silent majority"). hey, anybody else think maybe dubya's people have seized control of audioigon?
Coltrane1; I assume you meant to tell us that your thread posting above is "in your (humble?) opinion? I do like certain jazz ballads, and buy some. But I don't need someome telling me what I should, or should not do, with my money, stereo equipment, music, or anything else. I'm open to civil suggestions though. Cheers. Craig.
Coltrane1, I do not have any idea of how much time you put into reading the threads and posts listed on this site. However, as an observation, I must state that it does not appear to have been too much. You sight only two of over 3000 threads. Spending the time to read through some of these would have led you to determine that most of us listen to a wide variety of music. Yes, each of has preferences and that is part of the beauty of this site and what makes us individuals. We are here at this giant cocktail party because of our love of music. We are bouncing ideas off of each other to improve our playback systems so that we may increase our enjoyment of the music we have. If you like jazz and only jazz that's fine with me. If someone does not care for jazz and hears it as "jerky", that is also fine with me. Just don't tell me that I am wrong and stupid for also enjoying classical and rock as well as jazz.
I tried to watch Jazz; and it seemed everytime I turned it on it was 10 minutes of a civil rights lecture for every one minute talking about the history of Jazz music.
Sugarbrie, you exagerate a mite. Worst still you miss one of the most important aspects of the history of this incredibly rich music. The state of civil rights had everything to do with much of what spawned this great tradition.
Now where's that doggon B-52's album....
I had an older 'cooler' friend in college who used to tell me I should stop listening to Led Zeppelin and the Stones, and listen to some real music - the Doors & Dylan. I though I was 'missing' something because I just didn't get why they were 'real music'.
Just occured to me that I graduated, and he didn't.
Love Shack ! Baby Love Shack ! That's where it's at !
Hiwave: Bach was a jazzman, you should know that! He improvised as much or more than any classical player. It doesn't hurt to have a classical training, but it certainly is, and has never been a prerequisite to play jazz. Heck, Wes Montgomery, probably one of the greatest guitar players that ever lived, couldn't even read a lead sheet! Sure, there have been some great players that were classically trained; Oscar Peterson, Art Tatum, to name but a few, but even they saw the light, and switched. Your argument is nothing does nothing more than support my position, which last time I checked, was merely a suggestion that someone not make a blanket statement about jazz without qualifying it, or in the very least, their reasons for calling it jerky. And no, jazz players are not imitating anyone. A great jazz player only channels what he/she hears. What performances have you been listening to? Ever hear an artist duplicate his/her solo? It's all about being in the moment. Once the moment has ended, it is gone. If imitation exists, it exists in the classical genre, not jazz. Anyone can train themselves to play a piece of sheet music. But can that same person improvise?
Dekay: No offense man. I didn't infer anything. You presumed what I said was an inference. I merely suggested that someone qualify their statements if they're going to make a blanket statement. BTW...I never weedle.
Garfish: I would be the last one to tell anyone what they should be listening to. To the contrary, the point is that folks should be listening to everything. I do. If the "jerky" comment hadn't been made, I'd not have been compelled to begin this thread. But it was made, and I began the thread to enlighten anyone who is willing to listen, that truth be told, jazz is the most technically challenging music. You may not understand it, but that's for them to discover. No one suggested what someone should be listening to...except you. :)
Doug: I've been an Audiogon member since week one. I didn't need to read 3000 comments to begin a thread suggesting that perhaps folks should investigate before closing their minds. Personally, I appreciate all forms of music. But, it's obvious yes, I dig jazz. You yourself suggest that this forum is all about enjoying all types of music. So, having said that, why would read more into my initiation of this thread other than to enlighten an obviously unacquainted person about jazz? Or, have I misinterpreted your post as you've undoubtedly misinterpreted mine?
Sugarbrie: There can be no true documentary about the history of jazz, without the mention of slavery, bigotry, prejudice. Don't let that turn you off man. You just might learn something!
Frogman: Nice to see someone actually gets it! Many don't!
Enjoy all! coltrane1
"The best jazz musicians I ever met all had classical training and there is no question that classical music IS the most technically challenging. Show me any jazz musician who can compose or play counterpoint like Bach. Jazz musicians are imitators, of each other and of the classical genre. Seems like you have yet to complete your course on music appreciation."
This is the sort of dogma, or belief that many a classical pianist espouses to. That, if one practices, and commits enough material to memory (into their fingers), that some day they might indeed become a great musician. Hogwash. Any decent jazz player will play circles around even a classical player trained in the Chopin school of playing. Man, it ain't about playin' something someone wrote 300 years ago. It's about playing what's in your heart, in your being. As beautiful as Classical is, it has no soul, no blues, and won't get your foot moving. As the Duke said, "It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that swing!"
I kid you not. If any of those cats from 3-400 years ago had the chance to jam with Charlie Parker, they would have jumped at the chance! Just as Parker loved, and studied some classics towards the end of his career. Man, if you're going to tell it, tell it right!
I dig classical too, but it ain't jazz. And jazz lives like no other.
BTW...whomever suggested I'm a newbie just because I'm not a regular here, heck man, I've probably sold more gear on this site over the past 3.5 years of its existence the the lot of you put together. Okay...I'm a newbie on the threads. I've merely tried to enlighten you fine folk. You can lead a horse to water but...I'll leave you fine folk to your forum of exclusivity. Enjoy!
"Mama let that boy play some rock and roll, jazz is much too crazy, he can play it when he's old..." Doucet from "The Deuce is Loose"
I wish we had a lot more about the individuals and what influenced them musically. If you have seen Ken Burns' other documentaries, a lot the civil rights stuggle information is a re-hash of the same material over and over again. The history of the USA is the history of civil rights all the way back to the Pilgrims who where escaping religious discrimination. Just for a point of reference, my financee' is of a different race and she finds the civil rights coverage a little too much also.
Coltrane: Actually yes, you did make a blatent attemp at dweedling. So now we have established that you are capable of self denial and that I am capable of being a big prick. I also assume that we are both here because of our interest in music and perhaps gear (I do not know where you stand on this, I am interested in both). Let's keep it clean without the cheap shots from now on. I am currently into "Bella Ciao" but I am not going to force it down anyone's throat:-)
"Mama let that boy play some rock and roll, jazz is much too crazy, he can play it when he's old..." Doucet from "The Deuce is Loose"
So is that what drove Parker and Coltrane, two of the most influential musicians ever to pick up an instrument, to early deaths at ages of 34 and 41?
Jeffloistarca: You do of course realize that rock n' roll evolved from JAZZ, don't you?
"I wish we had a lot more about the individuals and what influenced them musically.
I've watched the entire series. I suspect you'll receive a lot more of what you might be looking for in the later episodes. 9 and 10 are a must see.
"If you have seen Ken Burns' other documentaries, a lot the civil rights stuggle information is a re-hash of the same material over and over again. The history of the USA is the history of civil rights all the way back to the Pilgrims who where escaping religious discrimination. Just for a point of reference, my financee' is of a different race and she finds the civil rights coverage a little too much also. "
I'm failing to understand why the issue of race included in this documentary is effecting so many people to the degree that it is turning them off to it. If one chose to view a biography about Elvis, wouldn't one want to hear about his early childhood in Tupalo, Mississippi?
I applaud your openmindedness towards integrating people into your life beyond the basis on their skin color. You my friend, obviously do get it!
I began this thread in the context of addressing a mind that didn't obviously get it. I'll end it by saying that if you don't understand jazz, fine...acknowledge this as a shortcoming, and you have the choice to, or not to, use that as a basis for educating yourself more about it. But by all means, don't dismiss the ONLY true art form ever created in this country as something irrelevent. To me, that only shows ignorance. Now I know there are those of you that will read that statement and see it as a put down. It's not meant to be, for a lot of people in this country are ignorant about jazz, and history. And yes, ignorance too is a choice.
Coltrane: Actually yes, you did make a blatent attemp at dweedling. So now we have established that you are capable of self denial and that I am capable of being a big prick.
Dekay: Man, your comments suggest you to be a serious mind reader. It always amazes me how one person can write a statement, another read that statement, and the person that read it automatically presumes their interpretation of it is what the Author was trying to say! Not to worry man. You are not alone.
I also assume
Exactly! Your very assumptions are what clouded you into misinterpreting what I was saying from jump street. Your perception is not my perception, and as such have yet to express anything remotely close to what I was attempting to convey.
"that we are both here because of our interest in music and perhaps gear (I do not know where you stand on this, I am interested in both)."
Finally something we can agree upon! Hey, I've got hope for you yet man. But to tell you the truth, I'm really here to enlighten this mainly rock audience that their world would not exist without the music that it was created from.
"Let's keep it clean without the cheap shots from now on."
Cheap shots? Man, now you're really beginning to worry me. Name one cheap shot I've taken? I've been the consumate gentleman. However, that doesn't mean that I have to remain silent when ignorant comments are made, for fear that I may incur the rath of a predominantly rock minded audience.
"I am currently into "Bella Ciao" but I am not going to force it down anyone's throat:-)"
I applaud your openmindedness. It's too bad more people don't have your same openmindedness. Folks can listen to whatever floats their boat. We've only so much time. For the last time, I've not said anything to suggest what someone should be listening to. What I did say is that if you don't believe jazz to be worthy of exploration, so be it, but do not dismiss it as inferior to rock music, or any other just because you don't understand it. Truth be told, there's so much more happening there if one actually spends the time to equate themselves with the structure of the music. But don't get me started on a technical lecture. Next thing you know I'll be commenting on Block chords, Upper structures, Tritone substitutions, etc., and we don't need to go there, as most viewers wouldn't have a clue as to what I was talking about.
Originally posted this in the JAZZ on PBS thread, but this is where the action seems to be-I'll just paste the post in here: I'm a little late to the party here and in "you got to show me" thread but would agree with many of the "live and let live" posts. I think, however, Coltrane, that you're engaging in some serious historic revisionism when you state above that rock was born out of jazz. It's pretty clear that both rock and jazz were originally spawned by blues (although we could engage in endless chatter about how all these various forms of music have evolved). Whether it was Ellington or Armstrong, Presley or the Stones, they all started playing variations on themes originally presented by Handy, Johnson, Dixon and Waters. Personally, I am waiting for the Blues series on PBS, but not holding my breath. Jazz may not get the respect it truly deserves, but Blues gets even less.
I could be unappreciative and self-centered but "Ignorant-stoopid", I ain't. but, I took a second sighting on your babbling and figured, in manner or speech, you were just coming on as a so-called tough to impress me. I am not impressed. It is dangerous word, baby, that one, and if you use it against somebody standing in the same room with you there is a good chance you are going to get your lights turned out. Maan!
On a long thread last month regarding jazz recordings, I made a number of posts. Rather than try to recap my comments, let me quickly offer than I have been an avid jazz enthusiast since high school (late 1950's), and have taught a college course in jazz appreciate. Some of the remarks made on this thread either miss some important points about this extraordinary music, or are well-intentioned but misleading. For example, HiWaves commented that jazz musicians are imitators of the classical genre, and that jazz musicians do not really understand counterpoint. Nothing personal, HiWaves, but most GOOD jazz musicians go substantially beyond imitation by spontaneously creating music as they play. That, in essence, is what sets jazz apart from virtually all other major musical forms. Ken Burns' "Jazz" makes the valid point that jazz is an amalgam for forms: marches, late 1800's dances, blues, ragtime, negro work songs and chants, French operatic aria, etc. With regard to the comments about Bach: I also love Bach, as well as Mozart, Handel, Beethoven, and probably 100 or more great classical composers. But none of them combined extraordinary instrumental virtuousity with the ability to spontaneously created syncopated, polythmic music derived from a broad confluence of musical tradition. Listen to any good jazz drummer, for example, and you will hear 3-4 simultaneous rhythms. I have two references that I recommend to anyone interested in learning about jazz the music, not just the musicians who play the music. First, find the tape recording (or LP) titled "Jazz", which is a 1956 TV program from the Omnibus series, narrated by Leonard Bernstein. Lenny discusses the forms of jazz and the improvisational styles, with support from musicians such as Miles Davis. It's a great tape, and one that is always well received in my jazz appreciation class. The other reference source is the definitive college text on jazz: "Jazz Styles: History and Analysis", by Mark C. Gridley (published by Prentice-Hall). This book is easy to read, highly informative and interesting, and provides an excellent basis for really understanding America's only original art form.
"I'm a little late to the party here and in "you got to show me" thread but would agree with many of the "live and let live" posts."
Yes, you are late, but that doesn't matter. But that doesn't explain your comment above. You've jumped on board the identical erroneous conclusion as the people you're purportedly agreeing with. No one ever suggested, least of all me, one shouldn't listen to any particular type of music because it is inferior to another. To the contrary. What I HAVE suggested, is a person who doesn't understand a certain type of music shouldn't be so closeminded to suggest that because they fail to understand it, the music has no merit!
"Whether it was Ellington or Armstrong, Presley or the Stones, they all started playing variations on themes originally presented by Handy, Johnson, Dixon and Waters."
Hardly! Explain to me where Presley, the Stones, or even Armstong played anything remotely close to placing one scale upon another? Ellington began doing this in the 30's long before it became in vogue in jazz in the 50's, and his doing so hardly related to a variation on a theme from Handy, Johnson, or anyone else that preceeded him. These new harmonies all came about by design, not as a variation upon a theme.
I enjoy a healty debate as much as the next person, but it's important that information be accurate.
"Personally, I am waiting for the Blues series on PBS, but not holding my breath. Jazz may not get the respect it truly deserves, but Blues gets even less."
Finally, someone echoes what I've been saying since the beginning of this thread. Bottom line. Jazz doesn't get the respect that's due it, and I hasten to ad, that is probably because folks choose not to investigate it enough to understand it! Those that do, understand that there's more happening between the lines than their ears first hip them to. Those that don't, close their minds, and their ears, and therefore miss out entirely. The appreciation of jazz, like any other art form, is enhanced with some rudimentary understanding of music. Time well spent if you ask me, as the analyzation of any musical form only serves to reap greater rewards upon the listener!
Coltrane1 Yes, you are late, but that doesn't matter. But that doesn't explain your comment above. You've jumped on board the identical erroneous conclusion as the people you're purportedly agreeing with. No one ever suggested, least of all me, one shouldn't listen to any particular type of music because it is inferior to another. To the contrary. What I HAVE suggested, is a person who doesn't understand a certain type of music shouldn't be so closeminded to suggest that because they fail to understand it, the music has no merit!
"I think, however, Coltrane, that you're engaging in some serious historic revisionism when you state above that rock was born out of jazz." Historic revisionism. That's a fancy way of saying you've been hit over the head with the truth, and it's unsettling to you. Study the technical structure of rock in the 50's, 60's, which is a basic I to V to I to V chord, with an occasional IV chord tossed in, and Voila, you have nothing more than a basis for the Blues, which you obviously are aware is the basis for jazz.
Coltrane: You have now become the mind reader you recently accused Dekay of being. My agreement with the "live and let live" posts refers to people listening to what they want because they enjoy it. I happen to listen to mainly blues and some jazz (as well as other types of music) because I ENJOY it-my enjoyment of the music has nothing to do with whether I think one musical form is inferior or superior to another. I can assure you though that I do not enjoy all forms of the blues any more than I enjoy all forms of jazz. As you've deduced, I agree with you on many points; what I disagree with most is the way you're trying to make your point. I also disagree (if I'm reading you correctly) that jazz is the "superior" music form, but, then again, I don't have your technical understanding of the music. Your technical ramblings, however, leave me cold, much the way a technically proficient musician without an ability to inject emotion into the music leaves me. Re-read my post, particularly where I stated we could chatter endlessly about how the various musical forms have evolved. Your "placing one scale upon another" is in fact, part of that evolution, even if you proclaim it to be what makes jazz "superior". Blues is, unequivocally, the foundation upon which both jazz and rock are built; all your final paragraph says to me is that rock is built on a slightly less sophisticated foundation. Here's to the music.
"Learning about jazz
On a long thread last month regarding jazz recordings, I made a number of posts. Rather than try to recap my comments, let me quickly offer than I have been an avid jazz enthusiast since high school (late 1950's), and have taught a college course in jazz appreciate. Some of the remarks made on this thread either miss some important points about this extraordinary music, or are well-intentioned but misleading. For example, HiWaves commented that jazz musicians are imitators of the classical genre, and that jazz musicians do not really understand counterpoint. Nothing personal, HiWaves, but most GOOD jazz musicians go substantially beyond imitation by spontaneously creating music as they play. That, in essence, is what sets jazz apart from virtually all other major musical forms.
Ahhhhh...man, this is indeed sweet music to the ears. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only enlightened set of ears on this site. And, might I add, that HARMONIES developed through the evolution of JAZZ did not exist in the context of traditional harmonies before it. Why is that you might ask? Well, one reason is because before JAZZ, Western ears were accustomed to the traditional consonant harmony of Europe. It wasn't until the integration of the dominant 7th chord (even common to European classical music), with the blues scale (of African descent) was integrated with the diatonic scale common to the West, did jazz really begin to evolve. Once these different scales began to be examined, and developed, a constant exposure to them began to expand our ears. And so, what was once believed to be a sound that was incapable of being resolved by the ear, now was heard and accepted as purposeful, and opened many a door to new, fresh, and greater harmonies. Take away the flatted 7th (a dominant 7th scale), and you've removed the basis of the foundation to most, if not all jazz harmony. For the uninitiated, any song form can be broken down to its foundation, in essence, its harmony.
"Ken Burns' "Jazz" makes the valid point that jazz is an amalgam for forms: marches, late 1800's dances, blues, ragtime, negro work songs and chants, French operatic aria, etc."
Precisely! Additionally, these Negro work songs were nothing more than the blues, which is but a five note, or pentatonic scale. These workers sang notes that weren't common to Western ears, dissonant in fact, but they were common in Africa, the continent from which they came.
"With regard to the comments about Bach: I also love Bach, as well as Mozart, Handel, Beethoven, and probably 100 or more great classical composers. But none of them combined extraordinary instrumental virtuousity with the ability to spontaneously created syncopated, polythmic music derived from a broad confluence of musical tradition."
This is precisely why I suggested to the uninformed, that JAZZ is the most technically challenging form of music ever created. Sure, classical players reveal great technique, power, touch, feeling when they play. But combine those same elements with creating of your own soul as you're playing, rather than playing something in written form, and you've opened up a whole other can of worms! Can you say INFINITY? Well, you've just described JAZZ. To hear this, listen to a 40 minute Coltrane solo where he doesn't repeat a single phrase throughout, and we'll talk!
"Listen to any good jazz drummer, for example, and you will hear 3-4 simultaneous rhythms. I have two references that I recommend to anyone interested in learning about jazz the music, not just the musicians who play the music. First, find the tape recording (or LP) titled "Jazz", which is a 1956 TV program from the Omnibus series, narrated by Leonard Bernstein."
I'm sure most of you know this famous American classical conductor. This same Leonard Bernstein was an avid JAZZ fan, and is even quoted by bassist Charlie Haden, as having interupted his playing while Haden performed with Ornette Coleman.
"Lenny discusses the forms of jazz and the improvisational styles, with support from musicians such as Miles Davis. It's a great tape, and one that is always well received in my jazz appreciation class."
Thanks for the heads up. I'd not even heard of that. See, that's the great thing about music, and life...we can learn something new all the time if we keep our minds and ears open. Which is the only point I was attempting to make in initiating this thread.
"The other reference source is the definitive college text on jazz: "Jazz Styles: History and Analysis", by Mark C. Gridley (published by Prentice-Hall). This book is easy to read, highly informative and interesting, and provides an excellent basis for really understanding America's only original art form."
Ahhhhh...how sweet it sounds. Art Form. No art form can be understood without study. It is merely a door, to greater knowledge, discovery of the self, and on a much deeper level an opening to a very spiritual experience. Examine Coltrane's life, and you might reach a greater understanding of your own.
Okay, I can leave in confidence now that I know that I don't walk this vast darkness alone. Thanks for the time folks. It's been fun!
"Coltrane: You have now become the mind reader you recently accused Dekay of being. My agreement with the "live and let live" posts refers to people listening to what they want because they enjoy it."
We are in total agreement here. I fail to understand why this is an issue with you, as it certainly is not a preoccupation of mine. But others HAVE chosen to suggest it was my intent to suggest what they should, or should not listen to. Hmm...not so.
"I happen to listen to mainly blues and some jazz (as well as other types of music) because I ENJOY it-my enjoyment of the music has nothing to do with whether I think one musical form is inferior or superior to another. I can assure you though that I do not enjoy all forms of the blues any more than I enjoy all forms of jazz. As you've deduced, I agree with you on many points; what I disagree with most is the way you're trying to make your point."
Hey, that's okay man. You don't have to like my style. I feel I've been direct, polite, and informative. But we can't please all the people all the time. So, if it comes down to shooting the messenger for some, so be it.
"I also disagree (if I'm reading you correctly) that jazz is the "superior" music form,"
No, musical superiority could be categorized in the mind of the beholder, but never once have I said the art form of JAZZ is superior music. It's harmonies are more complex, but that doesn't make it superior. If one felt the need to categorize, superiority is reserved for the mind/ear of the listener.
"but, then again, I don't have your technical understanding of the music."
Hmmm...I have diliberately attempted to be as untechnical as possible. Apparently, I have at least failed you in that regard.
"Your technical ramblings, however, leave me cold, much the way a technically proficient musician without an ability to inject emotion into the music leaves me."
Hmmm...Again, my bad for having left you feeling so isolated. Come in out of the cold man.
"Re-read my post, particularly where I stated we could chatter endlessly about how the various musical forms have evolved."
Undoubtedly, we could talk. And only through the sharing of ideas is one able to learn, which for a final time was the SOLE reason I chose to initiate this thread.
"Your "placing one scale upon another" is in fact, part of that evolution, even if you proclaim it to be what makes jazz "superior"."
Misquote on your part. You're interpretation once again is getting you into difficulty. The "scale placement" phrase was but one example where I was attempting to share with you how the evolution of JAZZ was far more than variations upon a theme, as your comment suggested. Harmony has had a far greater impact on the evolution of JAZZ than variations on a theme. Again, this is but a single example...I could present countless others, but that would get far too technical, and you've already shown a distaste for "technical rambling."
One wouldn't have to become a full fledged music student to learn more about the music they enjoy.
"Blues is, unequivocally, the foundation upon which both jazz and rock are built;"
Not exactly so. Blues is a part yes, but a small fraction of the pie...If you gave any study to harmony you'd come to that conclusion on your own.
"all your final paragraph says to me is that rock is built on a slightly less sophisticated foundation."
Thank you. If anything good came out of this thread, perhaps you, and someone else will have learned that rock is built upon a "far" less sophisticated foundation (harmony), and therefore jazz is far more than "jerky music." We've come full circle!
And before I'm misquoted once again, no, that does NOT make JAZZ superior! But there's a heck of a lot more complexity going on than what's happening in rock n' roll.
"Here's to the music."
Yes, here's to the music Bro!
Exuse me while I roll my eyes.
I must admit, I have found this thread rather amusing. First, the good members of audiogon are accused of not having a clue. Then we are criticized for spending money on audio systems to get the absulote best performance from our music collection. And this only starts the thread. Then our good host has spent the better part of the posts either continuing to criticize or attempt to defend his jibberish. Dekay you got it right and I join you in a roll of the eyes.
Coltrane: Perhaps you could enlighten us with your opinions on rap.
Hip,Hop, Coldrain got the drop, Scim, Scam, but ain't got it up top, Flim, Flam, he's the man so he say, Wim, Wham, but we can't hear him play, Bim, Bam, the jazz man can talk all day, Dim, Dam, say jazz is all he play, Jim, Jam, he ain't no Bach man, Kim, Kam, and his music got no plan, Now You Has Jazz.
Coltrane, yes I do get it thank you. But your attitude towards this subject (jazz) and music in general, I am afraid is at best misguided and at worst militant and angry. You may disagree all you want but your comments speak for themselves. Your enthusiasm for jazz is obvious and laudable, your arrogance is not. "Jazz players don't imitate anyone" This is part of the mindset that over-romanticizes the creative process in jazz. Now, the greats are obviously inspired musicians but let's not forget (and they themselves are quick to point out)the countless hours that were spent in the practice room "working their shit out" and yes copying or drawing from the players that they emulated. The real Coltrane himself candidly spoke of his own influences Dexter Gordon,Lester Young. Have you ever heard the famous Clifford Browm practice tapes? "Any decent jazz pianist can play circles around a trained classical player" Give me a break. You can't possibly believe this. If you do, you obviously haven't listened to the great classical pianists. If you have and still feel that way, I'm afraid you have let your agenda cloud your senses. Perhaps you didn't mean to but the truth is you have come on too strong about all this. No one music is "better" than another. The best art is always a reflection of society, and a difficult social climate spawns very emotionally rich music. I wonder what much of todays music is saying about our society? That's a seperate thread. Again, your obvious fervor is admirable; but I am somewhat cofused by some obvious contradictions. I don't know how to say it in an inoffencive way so I will try it like this: I can think of few things that musicians hold in more disregard than the use of a giant's name in vain. Calling oneself Coltrane is, if you really understand Jazz and the mindset of it's practitioners a drag to say the least. I will end by quoting Doug Ramsey in notes for "The Complete Paul Desmond RCA Victor Recordings": "Now that the dust has settled from the last century's silly arguments about worth based on sales, sociology and categories rather than on musical value, there is general agreement in the jazz community (that Paul Desmond was one of the major soloists of his time).Listeners- real listeners undistracted by intamural nonesense-knew it all along.
Dr.Slam and Frogman: Both of your posts are super.
"I can think of few things that musicians hold in more disregard than the use of a giant's name in vain. Calling oneself Coltrane is, if you really understand Jazz and the mindset of it's practitioners a drag to say the least."
Frogman: Some of your comments suggest but one more example of misquotation, presumption, and assumption about many things I've said since beginning this thread. I won't take a defensive posture to counter your suggestions, as they are your beliefs, and as such, you're entitled to them.
Not that I have to explain myself, but for the record, the moniker is COLTRANE1. It is but a moniker. It does not use another persons name in vain, as you suggest. It does promote A) an obvious enthusiasm for Coltrane's music, and B) in the very least does provoke curiosity on the part of some person to ask, "What does Coltrane1 stand for?" (which it has many a time), thereby initiating interest on the part of someone who had no idea who Coltrane was.
I'll not comment on the rest of your post other than to say, yes, a student of an instrument mimics in the beginning, but the ultimate objective is to find one's own voice. There are countless voices in JAZZ that you, I, or anyone can easily identify that don't copy each other.
I believe you have mistaken enthusiasm of JAZZ for arrogance. It's your perception, and like something else we all have, perception is in the mind of the individual. I believe, it is arrogant and ignorant to suggest your own interpretation of what another has written, and intended to say. But that's okay, for we as human beings do this naturally. We always presume our interpretation is what another is saying. And this error occurs in each and every thread ever created. The bottom line. It's about thought, and a sharing of ideas. Not to be taken so seriously, for in the big picture, IT AIN'T THAT CRITICAL.
Coltrane1, you said, "I believe you have mistaken [my]enthusiasm of JAZZ for arrogance." I do appreciate the points you've made about jazz. But you did walk in here with a missionary complex, out to "enlighten" (your word, used several times) others about jazz. You seem surprised any time you discover another jazz supporter, so you must be unaware of the large number of jazz fans on this site, and of very recent jazz discussions here. Eldragan, who made the "jerky" comment, is not one of them. He's a busy contributor here, and he probably let his diligent work on the "best beer made anywhere" thread influence his style of commentary on this topic -- so what. You kind of violated many of the guidelines for how to work your way into a listserv, newsgroup, etc. I think that's why you're getting the reaction you are. Good luck!
I sense a softening in your attitude Coltrane1. You will find that you yourself might learn something from the contributors to this site. You are correct it is "about thought, and the sharing of ideas". The hardest thing is balancing one's convictions with some objectivity and an open mind. We are not all created equal as far as our hearing acuity nor our openness to music that is challenging or emotionally demanding. But most can learn and learn to appreciate the more subtle aspects of any form of music. Pick up any recording of Marriner cunducting Bach with The Academy of Saint Martin In The Fields. If that doesn't swing, I don't know what does. There has been no presumption, assumption nor misquotation in response to your comments. Just go back and reread your own posts with a bit more objectivity and you'll see what I mean. It's OK man, we all sometimes let our exuberance get in the way a bit. I'm reminded of when I was in conservatory and it was hip to put down the "classical cats" for not being able to swing and the classical cats stereotypically assumed that the "jazz cats" wouldn't be able to play in tune nor with finness. Not! Any really good musician knows that the dividing line is not nearly as wide as often thought. Take the edge off of your exuberance and you might make a good contributor to this arena.
"Any decent jazz pianist can play circles around a classically trained player."
"Give me a break. You can't possibly believe this. If you do, you obviously haven't listened to the great classical pianists."
Frogman: Let me elaborate on my initial statement. I've not wanted to go there because this is not a music study venue. But, since you insist.
For instance, if one aspires to learn Jazz Piano, one has to approach the instrument from a totally different mindset than a Classical player approaches it.
Let's examine the similarities first:
Both musicians must acquire a working knowledge of music theory.
The Classical player is content with studying traditional theory, and for the most part, he/she is off and running.
The Jazz player acquires the same theroretical knowledge, and after mastering that, he/she must roll up their sleeves and really get to work! In order to become a consumate player, one has to know when/how all of the traditional rules can be changed, substituted, omitted, or downright replaced or broken.
Theoritical knowledge (study) alone of an average Jazz player requires much more than a classical player.
Scales, Rhythms, etc.
The Classical student masters Major, Minor, and Diminished Scale Harmony, and his/her study of scales for the most part ends here. Standard rhythmic forms are also explored.
The Jazz student must master the above, but in addition to them he/she must also master a working knowledge of Melodic Minor scale, Whole Tone scale, Pentatonic scale, Blues scale, Bebop scale,etc., etc...I could go on, but you get the idea.
Rhythmically, the Jazz player must acquire a vast working knowledge of everything from Latin, Salsa, and every known rhythm under the sun, for who knows when the moment may arise that a particular rhythmic tempo is required.
While Classical theory is fairly complete at this point, a Jazz player has to address the following:
Basic Reharmonization (Tritone substitution, slash chords, half diminished chords, V chords and each of their alternate extensions, Lydian, Lydian Augmented)
Advanced Reharmonization: Contrary motion, Parallelism, Ascending/Desceding bass lines, pedal points, changing the melody...it goes on, and on, and on, as this but scratches the surface. One also needs to spend time learning the styles of the past, while working on their own voice. There simply are not enough hours in the day!
This is but a very brief glimpse into what a Jazz piano player must master before he/she even takes on the task of attempting to learn to improvise.
I have some personal working knowledge and experience of the piano. I'm what one would probably classify as an average player. I write, read, transcribe and improvise music as a hobbyist. I've never had any formal study in a scholastic environment. I've many a musical friend that has. If I or any of them were merely limited to studying (learning repetoire), and focusing on technique only, we'd all be professional. It should be pointed out to the unfamiliar, that Jazz piano is no easy undertaking. It is far more involved than the average listener is hearing. And to become good, really good, takes a great investment of time, sweat, and passion for the instrument.
I dig the classics too, but nothing I've ever heard impresses me personally as much as what I've heard the Jazz greats creating. Probably because, on an average recording I can hear what's happening, and know first hand what they've mastered to get there.
Like classical, it's a lifetime undertaking. One simply cannot do justice to it as a hobbyist, but it is no less rewarding...Jazz music sells on average make up less than 3% annually. So even professionals struggle to make a living.
So, you and I share a different view between a classical and a jazz player. And that is entirely as it should be. LOL...Hey man, just call me SOFTY from now on!
It's been fun man!
Hey Softy, there's a great story popular among my professional colleagues that goes like this; and it is absolutely verifiably true: Gerry Mulligan is on a plane on his way back to N.Y. and meets Zubin Mehta (then conductor of the N.Y. Philharmonic). They're chit-chatting and before you know it the maestro invites Mulligan to play the soprano saxophone solo in "Bolero" (by Ravel) in an upcoming series at Lincoln Center. Bolero is a very deceptively difficult solo to play well. During rehearsals it was one mishap after another, when came time for the soprano sax to play. Late entrances, inaccurate rhythms, very sharp high register...On the first performance, Mulligan played the entire second half of the solo one beat behind where he should have been. The second night he started the solo in the wrong octave (one too low) and the tenor saxophonist was about to finish the solo for him as he was about to run out of notes, when he suddenly jumped to the correct octave to finish the solo. The last performance whent fairly well and at the end the piece as the orchestra was taking it's customery bow, Mulligan turns to the tenor saxophonist and says: "We played the shit out of it, didn't we?"
Hmmm...All the more reason they should have hired 'Trane instead? :)
I think frogman and coltrane1 (softy) are comparing apples and oranges here. In my conversations with musicians I've gathered that the kind of theoretical background that coltrane is talking about is necessary for the kind of intense improv and avant guarde composition that jazz performers must be able to do. Less important to a jazz musician is being able to accurately reproduce a score, because in the end much of the technical aspects of his playing is controlled by intense interaction with his fellow musicians. Classical musicians are judged on their ability to recreate a score (especially in a symphonic setting), thus technical mastery is extremely important. Of course these are generalizations and all generalizations have exceptions. There are technically adept jazz musicians, and there are classical musicians who are geniouses of improv, but I think it's safe to say that these groups approach their instruments with a different mindset. Depending on the context, I think both groups are quite capable of playing circles in my head. P.S. to 'trane - I'd say that any modern composer of 'classical' (is this the not most abused vocabulary word in musicdom?) music must be extremely familiar with the compositional ideas which were formulated in this century.
You got that right Robba. Why not "Classic" (to reference good music) instead of pidgeon holing all music prior to Jazz "Classical"? Classical is an era. People need to get it right but "got to be carefully taught", which they are not. It gets confusing for the layman when you try to explain. unhuh....what in the hell are you talking about?
Many of the best instrumentalists (and singers for that matter) wether they are "classical" players or jazz players study(ied) with the same teachers for developing a solid foundation of technical mastery of their instrument. For wind players, one of the "gurus" was always Joe Allard who was a Juilliard, NBC/Toscanini based "classical" player who was revered by many prominent jazz players. From that standpoint, the approach is always the same no matter what direction a player will eventually take. Technical mastery of one's instrument is necessary no matter what. The player who pursues one avenue or another at some point finds that the emphasis must be placed on certain specific aspects of playing more so than others. As Coltrane1 points out, the jazz player must immerse his/herself in jazz theory; but to no greater degree than a classical player might have to study say, Baroque ornamentation. Entire treatises have been written on the subject as well as many other techniques that a "classical" player must be immersed in to convincinly play certain styles. Incidentally, the idea that a "classical" player has to simply be true to the score is a gross oversimplification. Much great music is at least in part about subtlety, and the extent to which a great classical artist has room for interpretation and bringing his/her own vision of the work to the performance is usually not understood. The point is simply that not only is no one music "better" than another; neither music (jazz nor classical) places more demands overall on the player than the other. This is the point that I think you continue to miss Coltrane1. Your comments suggest a higher plateau of demands on players for jazz. Not so. The reason I continue to come back to this is out of respect for the great enthusiasm that you show towards jazz. At some point in their evolution as players, musicians time and time again point to one of their most important milestones (no pun intended, if you know what I mean): Embracing all worthy music as fully equal in worth and worthy of their respect without condescension nor sense of superiority. Good luck with your playing and growth as a musician. Check out: Murray Perahia, "The Aldeburgh Recital". Sublime piano playing, as introspective as anything I have heard of Bill Evans' including the times I heard him live at The Vanguard. Are you hip to the piano music of Scriabin, Messiaen?
No, I've not heard of Scriabin or Messiaen. Thanks, I'll do some investigating. Any specific suggestions of recordings to start with?
You saw Evans live at the Vanguard!? Man...What I'd have given to have had that opportunity! There's a story going round...can't recall when I heard it exactly. Evans was appearing in a NY venue one night, and on this particular visit to NY, his hands were very swollen because of his habit. Legend has it that his right hand was so swollen it was beyond use to him, therefore he played the gig with only the use of his left hand. Musicians jammed the place after word quickly spread on the street about Evans performance. Evans whoa'd the crowd with one hand behind his back...literally.
Evans was greatly influenced by Ravel, and others. He's undoubtedly one of the all time greats in my book. Another voice in jazz that's easily recognizable from the first few bars.
On Kind Of Blue, IMHO, it was Evans' comping, soloing, that really complemented that album more than any other particular player. Each of those cats were stars in their own right, but for me, it is Evans playing that molds these players together.
"I'd say that any modern composer of 'classical' (is this the not most abused vocabulary word in musicdom?) music must be extremely familiar with the compositional ideas which were formulated in this century."
Hmmm...I wonder what use a classical composer would have for an upper structure chord in the traditional harmony of classical music. I'd be most interested in hearing about any suggestions of classical composers freely using a dominant 7th chord with a +11 and 13th extension. That would really show me something!
"At some point in their evolution as players, musicians time and time again point to one of their most important milestones (no pun intended, if you know what I mean):
Good 1! "Embracing all worthy music as fully equal in worth and worthy of their respect without condescension nor sense of superiority."
Hmmm...Truer words have never, ever been spoken. And no other comment made by anyone to this thread, more than reflect my personal feelings. It is the reason that prompted me to initiate this thread. That being, that Jazz is far more than "Jerky music." Jazz has made a major contribution to both our society, and the world at large. Unfortunately, not enough people invest the time to aquaint themselves with it. Why is it, on average, Jazz has to travel to Japan and Europe before locating an audience that receives it with open arms/ears? Does that suggest Europeans and Japanese are more sophisticated listeners than Americans? Or, does that suggest our societies musical tastes are dictated, and overwhelmed by the economics and advertising of the music industry? Heck, even Classical music has a respectable, loyal sized following in this country.
"Good luck with your playing and growth as a musician."
Very kind of you. Thanks. I'm having fun. It's a journey, and not a destination.
'Trane - regarding compositional use of Jazz structures... I had a friend in HS who went on to study composition in college and one of the major ideas he was trying to bring in was using these newer structures into his composition. There's some really far out stuff that's being composed these days which fails in certain ways to fit classification. I stumble into contemporary composers from time to time and am always impressed, but I have no idea where I can read or hear about this stuff. So far I've had the most luck by picking up random ECM recordings.
Someone's got to take carl's place! It's looking like Coltrane. If you don't agree with him, he's flaming. Hey, Coltrane, opinions are like a------, we all have em and some of us are them.... ducking for cover
However, it is looking like Coltrane is able to listen and learn, unlike Carl...I think it proves for more enjoyable posts when people listen as well as speak. I think that when more diverse ideas and opinions are shared, it makes the experience much more enriching.