controversial opinion on "Kind Of Blue"
newacct1048946
listening to it every day waiting to be blown away by the genius of it, but it
hasn't happened. Now, I'm still new to the jazz game, and I realize that the
things that make this material great could well be things that are just over my
head right now, but, just in terms of tunes sounding attractive, this set does
not touch things I already know and love like "THE BRIDGE," "IDLE MOMENTS,"
"BOSS TENORS," etc.
There's some beautiful soloing from Coltrane and Adderly on there, as well as
Miles (I'm just not a big trumpet fan), but most of the tunes, all of which are
so famous, just don't knock me out AT ALL. "All Blues," for example, just has
the dullest head I've ever heard. Same with "Freddie The Freeloader," I think-
nice playing (especially Kelly), but boring melody. "Blue In Green" is
gorgeous, though- I love that one. The other thing that strikes me is that,
while Miles' improvising doesn't seem to be affected by this tendency, the
melodies seem to all be right on top of the beat. Maybe, coming from an R&B
background, that bothers me in a way that it doesn't others, and maybe the time
period has to be taken into account (although other stuff I like from the same
period isn't like that, I don't think).And, finally, Bill Evans' improvising
(with all the chops he has!), DOES seem to be affected by a tendency to play
licks right on top of the beat. The first note of all his phrases seems to
start right on "1." He sounds so "stiff." I don't know- again, I may just be
really missing something here due to inexperience, but music is supposed to
SOUND good, isn't it? Does anyone else have similar complaints about this
album? Thanks!
dave kelly
not much, but some. look, this shit is over ya head. you know it
and we know it. so dont come frontin like you gary giddens an' shit!
you feel me? ya still in short pants and ya trying ta front on miles.
kids..sheesh!
Marc Sabatella
pretty sure that if I hadn't already been told of the importance of this
album, and I heard it blindfolded along with 20 other decent albums, I
wouldn't have picked it out as particularly great, although if I had
also been told the recording dates, I might have been a little more
impressed. I agree the melodies are not for the most part stupendous
bits of writing, but their charm is in their simplicity. "Freddie" may
not be much, but you're unlikely to forget it, either.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Falling Grace"
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Sounds, Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Flibbert Goosty
Different strokes for different folks. If it doesnt blow you away that
is
perfectly fine. Suffice to say that it is generally agreed upon that
KOB is a landmark recording and is
an historically significant document. It represents a linage and a
major link in the chain and defined the way musicians would play jazz
for decades to come.
Sometimes it's difficult to understand the relative importance of
something in hindsight. KOB was recorded over 40 years ago, in a
vastly different time period than what we live in now. Ask any
contemporary child in America to play with a hoola-hoop,
etch-a-sketch, or slinky and they will look at you like your crazy.
Yet in 1959 they where the craze. You need to put KOB in the context
in which timeframe it was recorded. Go out and get 10 or 15 or 20
jazz records that were released at the very same time as KOB and
listen to them all. After comparing those recordings to KOB you will
have a better understanding of the uniqueness and originality of this
recording. As for haveing complaints about this recording I will refer
you to a quote by Miles himself: "If it's so easy, you do it!"
Flibby
"The mark of genius is not perfection, but originality"
Jeremy
First off - prepare yourself to be verbally assaulted by the many
vigilant pro-Miles fans on this newsgroup.
Second - I find this to be one of the most listened to albums in my CD
collection. What is interesting to note, is that I, too, did not find
it to be "all that" when I first listened to it. At the time I first
listened to this album, I was already into jazz - but had just come
from the "Mingus School", if you will. My ears were used to the big
bands of Mingus, and were not accustomed to the small combo settings,
such as the spectacular one on this album.
Thinking it was just a "good" album and nothing really special, I
stopped listening to it and put it on my shelf. At this point I
decided to venture into the smaller combo settings and went out and
got all of the Miles,Trane,Philly Joe,Chambers,Garland quintet albums,
got some "Coltrane's Sound"-era albums, some Bill Evans, some Oscar
Peterson, and similar stuff. I didn't realize it, but I was gradually
becoming a more "active" listener while enjoying these albums. One
day, about a few months after I first listened to "Kind of Blue", I
decided to give it another shot. WHOA! I started hearing things on
this album I never picked up the first time around! It really is an
incredible set.
Of course, at that point I decided to venture further into Miles'
territory and discovered his second quintet
(Miles-Carter-Hancock-Williams-Shorter -- Particularly Miles Smiles)
and "In A Silent Way" - which naturally led me to bigger and greater
things IMHO.
If you are coming from the R&B school like you say you are, and don't
have much jazz experience, don't expect to hear the same things in an
album a jazz critic does. Just enjoy what you can and keep listening
to a variety of musicians. Once you get a feel of what's going on in
jazz, you'll begin to hear things a little differently and have a
better appreciation for albums like "Kind of Blue".
Keep Listening,
Jeremy
Mr J Bongo Zed
Now, this absolutely proves you are hip, cool, on the cutting-edge
etc. Way beyond mere mortals. Did you ever see that amazing
blank canvas that symbolized the essential emptiness of man's life?
Me, I like to see real pictures and stuff.
Todd Warnke
What I find most fascinating about KoB is its incredible purity and
simplicity. To me it sounds like a live set, that is it sounds totally
unrehearsed, which, of course, it was. The story goes that Miles walked
into the session and whispered to each player, "think about xx", took a
couple of minutes and said, "roll the tape". What makes it remarkable is
that instead of working from a traditional song set the players are working
modally and with unknown tunes. The result is that I hear the sound of
these men listening to each other far stronger than with other jazz albums.
It goes beyond standard jazz improv to become collective and spontanious
composition. As with much of Miles' music, it is the silences that count as
much as the notes.
Todd
"newacct1048946" <newacct...@aol.come> wrote in message
news:20020221135013...@mb-fd.aol.com...
puck
smoked:
> Well, I got "KIND OF BLUE" for the first time a couple weeks ago. I've been
>listening to it every day waiting to be blown away by the genius of it, but it
>hasn't happened. Now, I'm still new to the jazz game, and I realize that the
>things that make this material great could well be things that are just over my
>head right now, but, just in terms of tunes sounding attractive, this set does
>not touch things I already know and love like "THE BRIDGE," "IDLE MOMENTS,"
>"BOSS TENORS," etc.
I WAS LISTENING TO JAZZ FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS BEFORE I HEARD KIND OF
BLUE.
it was played time and time again after a row with my best friend on
the early morning of 1st january 1998. i haven't looked back ever
since.
it is not something that you really want to listen to every day
though. take it out of the closet once every six months maybe.
a lot of this form of modal jazz is about the sheer beauty and the
feeling that it gives you. maybe you are devoid of those feelings?
puck
...blame it on my youth...
bkn...@conramp.net
:On 21 Feb 2002 18:50:13 GMT, newacct...@aol.come (newacct1048946)
:smoked:
:
:> Well, I got "KIND OF BLUE" for the first time a couple weeks ago. I've been
:>listening to it every day waiting to be blown away by the genius of it, but it
:>hasn't happened.
<clip>
:a lot of this form of modal jazz is about the sheer beauty and the
:feeling that it gives you. maybe you are devoid of those feelings?
:puck
And...maybe he isn't. To each......well, you know.
bk
sgordon
heavily involved in jazz all my life as a listener and a player, and
I still find Dexter Gordon dull listening. To each his own.
Kind of Blue sets a unbelievable mood right from the get-go, and sticks
with it. When it was recorded, nobody had ever heard anything like it
before. For one thing, it is an exploration in how to make the simple
sound as beautiful as possible. Everone is exploring space ... which
was not really a major concern in jazz up to that time.
Set it aside, go and listen to some Trane (Giant Steps, Love Supreme),
some Miles quintet stuff (Seven Steps to Heaven), some Bill Evans
(Live at the Village Vanguard), some Pat Metheny, etc... then go back to
Kind of Blue and you just may hear the essence of everything that came
after it, distilled down into its simplest purest form.
Or, who knows, maybe you'll still think it's dull! Not everyone can
be expected to honestly like everything.
Scott
Joshua Bayer
dave kelly wrote:
>
> look here, junior, ya say ya new ta the game. so umma cut ya some slack
> not much, but some. look, this shit is over ya head. you know it
> and we know it. so dont come frontin like you gary giddens an' shit!
> you feel me? ya still in short pants and ya trying ta front on miles.
> kids..sheesh!
>
>
Boy, I hope this is humor. I'm too stupid to tell.
Victor Eijkhout
> a lot of this form of modal jazz is about the sheer beauty and the
> feeling that it gives you.
Ignore the notes and just listen to the mood? I guess I can do that.
Play it while I'm doing the dishes or so.
--
Victor Eijkhout
"the time comes for everyone to do deliberately what
he used to do by mistake" [Quentin Crisp]
Skip Elliott Bowman
abilities to judge a classic recording is based on the unstable foundation
of overconfidence coupled with inexperience. You are forgiven this
particular transgression; but if you want your opinions taken seriously in
the future, don't let it happen again.
"Joshua Bayer" <jba...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3C7713E8...@erols.com...
r1
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, BUT if you don't see the
merits in this recording and you admit your lack of exposure to jazz, MAYBE
you should question what you're missing. IOW, the music is established and
not on trial. You are.
"newacct1048946" <newacct...@aol.come> wrote in message
news:20020221135013...@mb-fd.aol.com...
Bobby Knight
>Kind of Blue is gererally recognized as "great jazz" by most jazz musicians.
>You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, BUT if you don't see the
>merits in this recording and you admit your lack of exposure to jazz, MAYBE
>you should question what you're missing. IOW, the music is established and
>not on trial. You are.
>
Since when is someone put on trial for his opinions? He *is* questioning
what he's missing, and stated that in a very lucid manner and doesn't
suggest that anyone believe as he does.
You might take that as a hint.
bk
Joe Finn
view of a well regarded and historically significant recording. He
understands not the bebop that preceded it nor extrapolations, expansions,
expressions and explorations that sprang forth in it's wake. He has been
politely informed in the course of this thread that the work he unfairly
criticized is an "important" "landmark recording" of "historically
significant purity and simplicity" that "sounds like a live set"," [as in]
" totally unrehearsed". The "uniqueness and originality" of this album is
part of what has allowed it to survive it's creators as a musical monument
for some forty odd years so far.
While freely admitting his inexperience with such matters, Mr. New account
also disrespectfully uses terms like dull and boring to characterize the
melodies included in the recording before passing his final benediction that
includes the phrase [and I quote]
"music is supposed to SOUND good, isn't it? "
Frankly, this pisses me off.
Please forgive me
my grumpiness.
>"Bobby Knight" wrote
> Since when is someone put on trial for his opinions?
That's fair enough. It's not so much that anybody is on trial for their
opinions; but how do we separate ourselves from our behavior and or the
statements we make? We say and do what we say and do. Our words and deeds
reflect upon us and we will be judged accordingly.
Kind of Blue is an established work that was completed generations ago. So
before Mr. New account rewrites War and Peace, repaints Guernica or
rechisels David perhaps we could just ask him to honor one simple request.
Before you have us revise this particular masterpiece or attempt to convince
anyone that it is wanting or somehow inadequate just tell us this: What
parts would you change and how?
I wish Miles was here so you could tell him to his face.
--
Visit me on the web. www.JoeFinn.net
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Tom Walls
skip...@teleport.com says...
> Translation: See here, young man. Your estimation of your critical
> abilities to judge a classic recording is based on the unstable foundation
> of overconfidence coupled with inexperience. You are forgiven this
> particular transgression; but if you want your opinions taken seriously in
> the future, don't let it happen again.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
dave kelly
Adam Bravo
news:3c79e...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> "music is supposed to SOUND good, isn't it? "
>
> Frankly, this pisses me off.
> Please forgive me my grumpiness.
Well, then, what is music supposed to do?
Mike C.
are supposed to LOOK good, aren't they?". What is your definition of looking
good? Music is the art of organizing sound in time. If it gets across the
feelings and the point that was intended, then it is successful.
"Adam Bravo" <mra...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:snAe8.4795$2v6.4...@news1.west.cox.net...
Dennis J. Kosterman
wrote:
>Mr. New account posted what I regard as a highly uninformed statement of his
>view of a well regarded and historically significant recording. He
>understands not the bebop that preceded it nor extrapolations, expansions,
>expressions and explorations that sprang forth in it's wake. He has been
>politely informed in the course of this thread that the work he unfairly
>criticized is an "important" "landmark recording" of "historically
>significant purity and simplicity" that "sounds like a live set"," [as in]
>" totally unrehearsed". The "uniqueness and originality" of this album is
>part of what has allowed it to survive it's creators as a musical monument
>for some forty odd years so far.
I'm not sure that any of this matters. That's the beauty of music. You
shouldn't have to know anything about bebop or the historical
importance of "Kind of Blue" in order to appreciate the music. Just
listen to it. It either moves you or it doesn't.
"Kind of Blue" is generally regarded as a masterpiece, but that
doesn't mean everyone is obligated to love it. I love it, but there
are other jazz albums (and even other Miles Davis albums) that I love
more. And I can easily imagine people, knowledgeable and otherwise,
who don't care for it at all. "Mr. New Account" is apparently one of
these people. So what? Is his taste not allowed to differ from yours?
>While freely admitting his inexperience with such matters, Mr. New account
>also disrespectfully uses terms like dull and boring to characterize the
>melodies included in the recording before passing his final benediction that
>includes the phrase [and I quote]
> "music is supposed to SOUND good, isn't it? "
>Frankly, this pisses me off.
Why? Do you disagree with the statement "Music is supposed to sound
good"?
>>"Bobby Knight" wrote
>> Since when is someone put on trial for his opinions?
>That's fair enough. It's not so much that anybody is on trial for their
>opinions; but how do we separate ourselves from our behavior and or the
>statements we make? We say and do what we say and do. Our words and deeds
>reflect upon us and we will be judged accordingly.
>Kind of Blue is an established work that was completed generations ago. So
>before Mr. New account rewrites War and Peace, repaints Guernica or
>rechisels David perhaps we could just ask him to honor one simple request.
>Before you have us revise this particular masterpiece or attempt to convince
>anyone that it is wanting or somehow inadequate just tell us this: What
>parts would you change and how?
I don't recall any suggestion that "Kind of Blue" should be revised or
changed. And I certainly didn't get the impression that he was trying
to convince us of its inadequacy. In fact, I got the opposite
impression -- that he wanted to *be* convinced that it's good. He was
basically saying, to paraphrase, "This is my opinion of the album. It
seems to conflict with the opinions of most of you. Tell me what I'm
missing." An honest request for enlightenment. What's wrong with that?
And suppose he never does warm up to "KOB"? So what? If everyone liked
exactly the same things, what would we argue about? We could all just
listen to Mr. Zed's suggestion of the day and be happy. Or very
bored...
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Tom Walls
>
> I'm not sure that any of this matters. That's the beauty of music. You
> shouldn't have to know anything about bebop or the historical
> importance of "Kind of Blue" in order to appreciate the music. Just
> listen to it. It either moves you or it doesn't.
I'm going to quibble with you here, Dennis. I noticed that many people
responding to this thread mentioned it's great feel and mood. I would
submit that if that's the depth of their appreciation(and hopefully it
isn't) then they are missing a good bit of the story. There are umpty-dum
jazz recordings that sustain a mellow groove, and if that's all it took
to get us off we would now be participating on the
rec.music.bluenote.smooth newsgroup. I grasped the mood on my first
encounter with KOB, but it didn't grab me until I was familiar enough
with the players and the background of the session to appreciate the
depth of the music. You may fault me for having a tin ear or being slow
on the uptake -- I often don't get the really heavy stuff the first time
around -- , but if beauty is in the eye of the beholder then the
intrinsic value of the art would correspond to the depth of the
beholder's understanding.
newacct1048946
>shouldn't have to know anything about bebop or the historical
>importance of "Kind of Blue" in order to appreciate the music. Just
>listen to it. It either moves you or it doesn't.
Not only that, but this was a stupid, uninformed assertion on his part. I
certainly know quite a lot about the bebop that preceded it and all that
"sprang forth in its wake." I am a newcomer only to PLAYING jazz (I have played
R&B professionally for years). I have listened to and learned about it for
years. I finally purchased KOB determined to fall in love with it (having heard
everything from it many times over the years, individually, and never having
been wild about any of the compositions other than Blue In Green). What I
learned, after intensely consuming it, is that, in addition to the great
soloing that I'd always appreciated about it, the mood of the LP as a whole is
really powerful, and I grew to really love Flamenco Sketches in a way I had not
before. I also learned that no amount of listening was going to make me any
more enamored of the heads of All Blues or Freddie Freeloader, more keen on
Miles' tone (love his ideas!), or more in love with Bill Evans' rhythmic
approach on uptempo tunes. Those were my only negative reactions to the LP,
they are informed opinions, and I do not apologize for them. Joe Finn suffers
from an adolescent anger in his reactions to opinions that differ from his own
(there's a gentleman in The Netherlands with the same problem). That is his
problem, not mine.
newacct1048946
>shouldn't have to know anything about bebop or the historical
>importance of "Kind of Blue" in order to appreciate the music. Just
>listen to it. It either moves you or it doesn't.
Not only that, but this was a stupid, uninformed assertion on his part. I
certainly know quite a lot about the bebop that preceded it and all that
"sprang forth in its wake." I am a newcomer only to PLAYING jazz (I have played
R&B professionally for years). I have listened to and learned about it for
years. I finally purchased KOB determined to fall in love with it (having heard
everything from it many times over the years, individually, and never having
been wild about any of the compositions other than Blue In Green). What I
learned, after intensely consuming it, is that, in addition to the great
soloing that I'd always appreciated about it, the mood of the LP as a whole is
really powerful, and I grew to really love Flamenco Sketches in a way I had not
before. I also learned that no amount of listening was going to make me any
more enamored of the heads of All Blues or Freddie Freeloader, more keen on
Miles' tone (love his ideas!), or more in love with Bill Evans' rhythmic
approach on uptempo tunes. Those were my only negative reactions to the LP,
they are informed opinions, and I do not apologize for them. This Joe Finn,
besides experiencing a bit of confusion (he had me mixed up with someone else
on the jazz guitar newsgroup, responding to words and circumstances that were
not mine), suffers from an adolescent anger in his reactions to opinions that
void
> You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, BUT if you don't see the
> merits in this recording and you admit your lack of exposure to jazz, MAYBE
> you should question what you're missing. IOW, the music is established and
> not on trial. You are.
Why does everyone around here have to take themselves so seriously?
If the original poster doesn't like Kind of Blue now, maybe he'll pick
it up again in a few years and like it them. And maybe he won't. Uh
... so what?
--
Ben
"An art scene of delight
I created this to be ..." -- Sun Ra
newacct1048946
On the other hand, Joe does seem to be a knowledgeable guy and we all have our
faults!
newacct1048946
The original poster likes it now. He just doesn't love everything about it and
it got him in some hot Usenet water!
Dennis J. Kosterman
wrote:
I'll drink to that. I've had the same experience with "KOB", as well
as many other recordings, and many of my favorite recordings didn't
really grab me the first time I heard them. I'm not claiming that one
superficial listen is all you need to appreciate something.
And yes, background knowledge and familiarity with the idiom can help
you appreciate something more easily. But I'm disturbed by the notion
that special knowledge is *necessary* to appreciate the music. A
successful piece of music should be able to stand on its own. If it
can't do that -- if special knowledge is a prerequisite for enjoyment
-- then that piece of music is, at least in some sense, a failure.
The person to whom I was responding implied that you can't really
appreciate "KOB" unless you're familiar with bebop. But by that line
of reasoning, you can't appreciate bebop unless you're familiar with
swing. And you can't appreciate jazz at all unless you're familiar
with classical music and early 20th-century folk and popular music and
whatever else jazz grew out of. Any piece of music is, directly or
indirectly, influenced by all the music that came before it. So you
really need to start at the beginning and familiarize yourself with
the entire history of pre-20th century music -- in chronological order
-- before you can hope to appreciate jazz. In which case you'd
probably never get to jazz at all. So I repudiate that entire line of
reasoning, even though there's something in it that appeals to me.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Tom Walls
snip
I mostly agree with you except for the following:
> And yes, background knowledge and familiarity with the idiom can help
> you appreciate something more easily. But I'm disturbed by the notion
> that special knowledge is *necessary* to appreciate the music. A
> successful piece of music should be able to stand on its own. If it
> can't do that -- if special knowledge is a prerequisite for enjoyment
> -- then that piece of music is, at least in some sense, a failure.
>
Background and familiarity with the idiom can certainly help you
appreciate something more easily, but it can also help you appreciate it
more fully. Don't misunderstand me -- I don't approach music as though
I'm studying for an exam -- but, as a musician I take a lifelong approach
to the study of music and so with time my understanding increases. With
greater understanding I've come to enjoy music that I once disliked, and
discovered new meaning in music that I'd been listening to for many
years.
So if I encounter a piece of music that I don't like, by your standard it
is unsuccessful because it failed to "stand on its' own". Okay, ten
years later I'm crazy about it. And why? Because of my increased
knowledge of background information and familiarity with the idiom. You
see my point?
Mike C.
places, as well. When I was in college, I was part of a literature group,
where many of the members were into poetry readings that featured many
people who felt moved enough to scratch some thoughts on a napkin and read
it as poetry. While I certainly believe in creativity and spontaneity, the
point behind why I find this kind of activity appalling is that art is not
something that happens off the top of one's head. Poetry is the manipulation
of language to get a point across, using abstract devices such as symbolism,
rhyme schemes, meter, etc. Same with painting; one can't just decide on a
concept and slap it on paper and call it art. One needs to study how colors
work together, how different shades bring out depth, etc., and use these
devices to create a piece that could be considered art. Similarly, one
should study music history, musical devices, harmony, theory, etc., in order
to create a piece that could be considered jazz, music, art, whatever you
want to label it. The more one knows about the art, the time and effort
necessary to get to that creative level, the more one can appreciate the
piece. To say that one shouldn't need to know anything about music to
appreciate it is to say that anything that can't be appreciated by a child
is overkill. It takes a certain amount of maturity to be able to understand
more complex music, which includes knowing more about music than we may have
known in our childhood. Learning something about jazz has helped us become
jazz fans in our adulthood. Who is to say how much learning is a bad thing?
A successful piece of music should be able to stand on its own, but there is
no such thing as listening to a piece of music without special knowledge.
The *degree* of special knowledge is subjective. Special knowledge is a
prerequisite for enjoyment of *all* music.
"Tom Walls" <tw...@REMOVEcornell.edu> wrote in message
news:MPG.16e7faac6...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
Dennis J. Kosterman
wrote:
>In article <3c7da427...@news.tds.net>, den...@tds.net says...
>snip
Yes, but couldn't the same thing be achieved just by increased
familiarity with that particular piece of music? "Kind of Blue" was
one of the first jazz recordings I ever heard. At first, I "kind of"
liked it, but it didn't blow me away or anything. But the more I
listened to it, the more I liked it. It became one of my favorite
records at a time when I still hadn't heard much other jazz.
And this has been my experience with most of the music that I like
more now than I did the first time I heard it. I simply heard the
piece of music in question enough times that it became familiar to me,
and I began to like it. It took me a long time to appreciate Cecil
Taylor, for instance. But appreciation was achieved not by studying
music theory or listening to a bunch of other stuff. All I did was
listen to a lot of Cecil Taylor until he didn't sound so weird
anymore.
Again, I'm not entirely denying your point. The more you know, the
more you can appreciate. But I still think you can appreciate just
about any piece of music on its own terms if you put enough effort
into it. Liking something now that you didn't like ten years ago may
be as much a function of having heard that piece of music for ten
years as of anything else you've learned in those ten years.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Dennis J. Kosterman
wrote:
>That's a great example, Tom. It addresses something that I've found in other
>places, as well. When I was in college, I was part of a literature group,
>where many of the members were into poetry readings that featured many
>people who felt moved enough to scratch some thoughts on a napkin and read
>it as poetry. While I certainly believe in creativity and spontaneity, the
>point behind why I find this kind of activity appalling is that art is not
>something that happens off the top of one's head. Poetry is the manipulation
>of language to get a point across, using abstract devices such as symbolism,
>rhyme schemes, meter, etc. Same with painting; one can't just decide on a
>concept and slap it on paper and call it art. One needs to study how colors
>work together, how different shades bring out depth, etc., and use these
>devices to create a piece that could be considered art. Similarly, one
>should study music history, musical devices, harmony, theory, etc., in order
>to create a piece that could be considered jazz, music, art, whatever you
>want to label it.
I absolutely agree. Art is not something that happens off the top of
one's head. But everything you've said so far deals with the
*creation* of art. But for whom is the art created? Only other
artists? Are you saying I can't appreciate "Ode on a Grecian Urn"
unless I can write something just as good? (Funny, I loved it as a
kid.) Or that I can't enjoy a Charlie Parker solo unless I can play
it? Sorry, can't agree with that. Art is an attempt by the artist to
communicate something to others, and those others need not be as
talented as the artist. The artist needs to spend years studying and
practicing and refining his craft, but the audience shouldn't have to.
Any art that requires that is going to wither and die, because most
people don't have the time or energy to master the art to the same
degree as the artist.
>The more one knows about the art, the time and effort
>necessary to get to that creative level, the more one can appreciate the
>piece. To say that one shouldn't need to know anything about music to
>appreciate it is to say that anything that can't be appreciated by a child
>is overkill. It takes a certain amount of maturity to be able to understand
>more complex music, which includes knowing more about music than we may have
>known in our childhood. Learning something about jazz has helped us become
>jazz fans in our adulthood. Who is to say how much learning is a bad thing?
Not me -- learning is a wonderful thing -- but music is supposed to be
a "universal language", isn't it? And don't underestimate the
abilities of children. I was listening to, and enjoying, classical
music (which is at least as complex and difficult as jazz) when I was
a child, long before I knew anything about sonata form or anything
like that. I didn't start liking jazz until I was in high school, but
that's mostly because I didn't *hear* much jazz until then. I don't
think age or experience was any barrier.
>A successful piece of music should be able to stand on its own, but there is
>no such thing as listening to a piece of music without special knowledge.
>The *degree* of special knowledge is subjective. Special knowledge is a
>prerequisite for enjoyment of *all* music.
I disagree. Do I need a degree in architecture before I can live in a
house? Do I need to be a professional chef before I can eat? Of course
not. And I don't need to know anything about music (in the abstract
sense) to listen to music. If familiarity with bebop is a prerequisite
for enjoying "Kind of Blue" (the original assertion), then you have to
take that argument to its logical conclusion -- we all have to spend
the next ten years or so familiarizing ourselves with the entirety of
pre-20th century music before we dare to try listening to jazz at all.
And then we better start with Armstrong and Ellington before we try to
listen to Bird or Miles. And I guess we need a degree in music theory,
too.
Not that all of this wouldn't help, but if it's *necessary*, music
would have died out a long time ago.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Tom Walls
snip
> Art is an attempt by the artist to
> communicate something to others, and those others need not be as
> talented as the artist.
>
snip
I think it would be rude of me to jump in and answer points that were
obviously addressed to Mike, but I can't resist responding to the
previous:
I don't agree with your definition of art, and I have my own, but instead
let me just point out that Merriam-Webster lists six definitions for art
in this sense, and none of them alludes to communication. I keep hearing
this "art is about communication" business, and it gets up my nose. In a
consumer society the audience is led to think that it's all about them.
More often than not the artist is not thinking about communication in the
least: the artist concentrates on their object(ive). And this is a good
thing; otherwise, art would be like politics. :<)
Mike C.
"Dennis J. Kosterman" <den...@tds.net> wrote in message
news:3c7f5d65...@news.tds.net...
(snip)
Art is not something that happens off the top of
> one's head. But everything you've said so far deals with the
> *creation* of art. But for whom is the art created? Only other
> artists? Are you saying I can't appreciate "Ode on a Grecian Urn"
> unless I can write something just as good? (Funny, I loved it as a
> kid.) Or that I can't enjoy a Charlie Parker solo unless I can play
> it? Sorry, can't agree with that. Art is an attempt by the artist to
> communicate something to others, and those others need not be as
> talented as the artist. The artist needs to spend years studying and
> practicing and refining his craft, but the audience shouldn't have to.
> Any art that requires that is going to wither and die, because most
> people don't have the time or energy to master the art to the same
> degree as the artist.
Admittedly, the audience shouldn't have to spend as much time as the
musician, but one has to have come to some sort of organization of thoughts
and abstractions in order to understand music at all. I failed to go into
the appreciation of the art as I would have liked. I don't think that you
have to be able to write, paint, or play as well as the artist to appreciate
his/her work, but I do need to be able to intelligently compare and contrast
the work to other works. And I don't agree that most people don't have the
time or energy to learn something about the art. Most people are too
friggin' lazy to bother learning about it.
>
> >The more one knows about the art, the time and effort
> >necessary to get to that creative level, the more one can appreciate the
> >piece. To say that one shouldn't need to know anything about music to
> >appreciate it is to say that anything that can't be appreciated by a
child
> >is overkill. It takes a certain amount of maturity to be able to
understand
> >more complex music, which includes knowing more about music than we may
have
> >known in our childhood. Learning something about jazz has helped us
become
> >jazz fans in our adulthood. Who is to say how much learning is a bad
thing?
>
> Not me -- learning is a wonderful thing -- but music is supposed to be
> a "universal language", isn't it? And don't underestimate the
> abilities of children. I was listening to, and enjoying, classical
> music (which is at least as complex and difficult as jazz) when I was
> a child, long before I knew anything about sonata form or anything
> like that. I didn't start liking jazz until I was in high school, but
> that's mostly because I didn't *hear* much jazz until then. I don't
> think age or experience was any barrier.
Music is a universal language, but that doesn't mean that everyone
understands it. I don't underestimate the abilities of children; I teach
them, actually. However, I find it difficult to believe that a child that
hasn't been exposed to the abstract concepts of art and music is going to
appreciate "Giant Steps". You make my point to a tee; you didn't like jazz
because you hadn't heard much of it. You needed to listen to it and learn to
understand it's subtleties, whether you could put those concepts in words or
not. Of course experience was a barrier. You had little experience listening
and interpreting jazz, so you chose not to. It was only when you had
listened to some, and figured out more about how it worked that you began to
enjoy it.
> >A successful piece of music should be able to stand on its own, but there
is
> >no such thing as listening to a piece of music without special knowledge.
> >The *degree* of special knowledge is subjective. Special knowledge is a
> >prerequisite for enjoyment of *all* music.
>
> I disagree. Do I need a degree in architecture before I can live in a
> house? Do I need to be a professional chef before I can eat? Of course
> not.
(snip)No, but you do need to be analytical and have a basic knowledge of
physics to be able to appreciate the house and how it was built.
And I don't need to know anything about music (in the abstract
> sense) to listen to music. If familiarity with bebop is a prerequisite
> for enjoying "Kind of Blue" (the original assertion), then you have to
> take that argument to its logical conclusion -- we all have to spend
> the next ten years or so familiarizing ourselves with the entirety of
> pre-20th century music before we dare to try listening to jazz at all.
> And then we better start with Armstrong and Ellington before we try to
> listen to Bird or Miles. And I guess we need a degree in music theory,
> too.
(snip) Absolutely not. But we need to be able to compare and contrast it
intelligently and be able to interpret it in an abstract sense. Not
necessarily to be able to name scales, notes, keys, etc., but at least have
some sense of what the player is trying to sound like, and be able to hear
when the player or composer is attempting to do something new and unique. We
don't have to spend all of our time familiarizing ourselves with all of
jazz, but some knowledge of it and what the purpose of the music is has to
be there. Familiarity with bebop is not a prerequisite, but one will
certainly miss a good portion of what makes "Kind Of Blue" great: it's
historical place in music.
>
> Not that all of this wouldn't help, but if it's *necessary*, music
> would have died out a long time ago.
Agreed, but some learning of any language is necessary in order to
appreciate it and have interest in it.
Dennis J. Kosterman
wrote:
>"Dennis J. Kosterman" <den...@tds.net> wrote in message
>news:3c7f5d65...@news.tds.net...
>> ... I didn't start liking jazz until I was in high school, but
>> that's mostly because I didn't *hear* much jazz until then. I don't
>> think age or experience was any barrier.
>Music is a universal language, but that doesn't mean that everyone
>understands it. I don't underestimate the abilities of children; I teach
>them, actually. However, I find it difficult to believe that a child that
>hasn't been exposed to the abstract concepts of art and music is going to
>appreciate "Giant Steps". You make my point to a tee; you didn't like jazz
>because you hadn't heard much of it. You needed to listen to it and learn to
>understand it's subtleties, whether you could put those concepts in words or
>not. Of course experience was a barrier. You had little experience listening
>and interpreting jazz, so you chose not to. It was only when you had
>listened to some, and figured out more about how it worked that you began to
>enjoy it.
I can't really argue with most of your points, and I don't think our
positions are that far apart, but I had to quibble with this one
point. I never "chose to ignore" jazz. I literally didn't know it
existed until I was in high school. My exposure to music before then
was limited to what was on the radio and TV (and not much TV -- we
were only allowed to watch one show each evening) and the records my
friends at school had, and the ones I eventually bought -- and that
was all pop and rock, the Beatles and stuff like that. No jazz to be
found anywhere. I discovered jazz while researching a paper I was
writing on the origins of soul music. I read about it in a history of
black music and decided to buy some records by some of the people I
was reading about -- Miles, Bird, Coltrane, Billie Holiday, etc. And I
was pretty much hooked immediately. As soon as I discovered jazz, I
"chose" to get as much more of it as I could!
Now, one of the first jazz records I heard was "Giant Steps" -- and I
hate to disappoint you, but I loved it the first time I heard it. I
didn't know what was going on theoretically (and I still don't, to
tell the truth), but I sure liked what I heard. It had a great beat, I
could sense the harmonic movement even if I didn't understand it, and
that guy on the sax was wailin'! It gave me chills, and it still does.
So I didn't have to learn to like jazz. There are a few specific
artists that it took me a while to warm up to (Cecil Taylor; Billie
Holiday, because I happened to start with one of the later Verve
records, when her voice was pretty much shot), but as for jazz in
general, I fell in love with it as soon as I heard some.
I'll concede most of the rest of your argument. We're really arguing
different things, I think. You're arguing degrees of appreciation, and
I'm talking more about absolutes -- responding to someone who seemed
to be claiming that you couldn't appreciate "Kind of Blue" *at all*
without all sorts of background knowledge. I still reject that
viewpoint, while acknowledging yours.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Marc Sabatella
I haven't really been following this discussion closely, and I think
this may be a bit of a tangent, but I wanted to discuss this.
Why *can't* art be something that happens off the top of one's head? Is
this not what happens every single time a jazz musician improvises? If
a jazz musician can create art on the bandstand on spur of the moment,
why not a poet on a cocktail napkin at a poetry reading? Why not a
painter at a canvas? In truth, a great many great works of poetry and
visual art were created in this way - on the spur of the moment.
It seems you are wanting to make a point about the preparation and
training that one should undergo before attempting such a creative act,
and if that was your point, I have fewer problems with it (although I
still am not sure I totally agree), but the analogies chosen do not make
this clear at all. That is, if you mean that if someone with no
experience with poetry - as opposed to an accomplished poet - scribbled
something on a napkin, it is unlikely to be considered great art by many
people, I might be inclined to suspect you would be right, although I am
perfectly willing to allow for exceptions. But the events I've been to
where this sort of thing happens are inhabited primarily by regulars who
spend at least as much time immersed in poetry as a musician does in
music. Ditto for the alla prima direct painter, who approaches a
painting without prior planning and completes it in an hour or so.
This reminds of a rather clever line I've heard one such artist use when
asked how long it took him to paint a particular piece - "thirty years
and two hours".
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Falling Grace"
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Sounds, Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Mike C.
preparation behind the spontaneity, which sounds like an oxymoron, upon
reflection. However, I *was* speaking of people with little experience with
poetry. Even someone with experience in poetry edits and re-edits his/her
work to make it great poetry. In a jazz sense, we practice our craft in
order to make informed, well-crafted improvisations. On the example of
painting, the Impressionist movement is a good example. It is the art of
creating a painting in a short time, letting us see exactly what the painter
interprets the scene at that time. However, someone without previous
experience in composition, colors, depth, etc., is not going to come up with
an impressionist painting as well as Monet. One is art, the other is
pretentious drivel.
I guess I should edit my statement to say that art doesn't happen off the
top of one's head without any previous consideration. The exception is
possible, but I just don't think likely that someone who has never played
the alto saxophone is likely to pick one up and play a more cohesive and
organized improvisation than one of Charlie Parker.
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:ftbg8.93$KD5....@news.uswest.net...
Leo Scanlon
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>> I absolutely agree. Art is not something that happens off the top of
>> one's head.
>
>Why *can't* art be something that happens off the top of one's head? Is
>this not what happens every single time a jazz musician improvises?
ABSOLUTELY, Marc. Anyone who thinks art can't happen "off the top of
one's head" has no business in a jazz newsgroup. Do I even have to
say it...improvisation (which is certainly art) is the very soul of
jazz.
Leo
Dennis J. Kosterman
wrote:
As the author of the first statement quoted above, allow me to
clarify. I wasn't talking about improvisation (and I don't believe the
guy I was responding to was talking about improvisation, either). We
were both referring to the notion that art can be created by just
about anyone -- no talent or training required. And we both reject
that notion (and, for the most part, I think Marc does, too).
At the very least, you have to acquire some basic technique before you
can even think about improvising. You have to learn how to make your
instrument duplicate the sounds you're imagining. That takes some
practice, even if you're a genius. Once you can do that, yes, you can
create art off the top of your head, although it still isn't easy.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Marc Sabatella
> As the author of the first statement quoted above, allow me to
> clarify. I wasn't talking about improvisation (and I don't believe the
> guy I was responding to was talking about improvisation, either). We
> were both referring to the notion that art can be created by just
> about anyone -- no talent or training required. And we both reject
> that notion (and, for the most part, I think Marc does, too).
Sort of - I wouldn't refuse to call something "art" just because it was
created by someone with no training; I merely suspect I would be
unlikely to personally consider it great art. My quibble was with the
analogies chosen, which made it seem like all art has to be planned in
advance by the artist over a long period of time, rather than created in
essentially the same time it take to enjoy it. I understand that was
not the author's intent.
Scott
not like it. We can't all be in agreement, as everyone has different
tastes. To jump down your throat just because you're new to the game
is ridiculous. It's your opinion and it's valued. Kind of Blue could
be seen as boring or elevator music to some or a masterpiece to
others. Don't let the Miles fantatics get you down.
-Scott
newacct...@aol.come (newacct1048946) wrote in message news:<20020221135013...@mb-fd.aol.com>...
> Well, I got "KIND OF BLUE" for the first time a couple weeks ago. I've been
> listening to it every day waiting to be blown away by the genius of it, but it
> hasn't happened. Now, I'm still new to the jazz game, and I realize that the
> things that make this material great could well be things that are just over my
> head right now, but, just in terms of tunes sounding attractive, this set does
> not touch things I already know and love like "THE BRIDGE," "IDLE MOMENTS,"
> "BOSS TENORS," etc.
> There's some beautiful soloing from Coltrane and Adderly on there, as well as
> Miles (I'm just not a big trumpet fan), but most of the tunes, all of which are
> so famous, just don't knock me out AT ALL. "All Blues," for example, just has
> the dullest head I've ever heard. Same with "Freddie The Freeloader," I think-
> nice playing (especially Kelly), but boring melody. "Blue In Green" is
> gorgeous, though- I love that one. The other thing that strikes me is that,
> while Miles' improvising doesn't seem to be affected by this tendency, the
> melodies seem to all be right on top of the beat. Maybe, coming from an R&B
> background, that bothers me in a way that it doesn't others, and maybe the time
> period has to be taken into account (although other stuff I like from the same
> period isn't like that, I don't think).And, finally, Bill Evans' improvising
> (with all the chops he has!), DOES seem to be affected by a tendency to play
> licks right on top of the beat. The first note of all his phrases seems to
> start right on "1." He sounds so "stiff." I don't know- again, I may just be
> really missing something here due to inexperience, but music is supposed to
> SOUND good, isn't it? Does anyone else have similar complaints about this
> album? Thanks!