Most Accessible Coltrane Album
David Rasmussen
any structure at all. What is the easiest album to listen to for a
beginner? I've bought "A Love Supreme" because it was supposed to be
accessible, but I don't find it to be excatly that. "Blue Train" which I
have also bought is easier, I think. So what are the three "lightests"
Coltrane albums?
/David
mazzolata
You might want to start with Coltrane as a sideman on Miles' "Kind of
Blue". "Giant Steps" is a little more complex than "Blue Train", but it
is a great CD. "My Favorite Things" is obviously based on a well known
tune, although he takes it to some new places! "Ole Coltrane" is very
melodic and fairly easy listening, for Coltrane. Stay away from the late
works like Ascension.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ma chambre a la forme d'une cage
le soleil passe son bras par la fenetre
Brian Rost
Live in Seattle
Live in Japan
Interstellar Space
(just kidding!!!)
Here are the three I'd really suggest, all are on the Impulse! label:
Ballads
John Coltrane and Johnny Hartman
Duke Ellington and John Coltrane
There's also an Impulse! compilation called "The Gentle Side Of John
Coltrane" you might want to check out (it duplicates 5 or 6 tracks from
the above 3 CDs).
--
Brian Rost
Stargen, Inc.
**********************************************************************
Steve
David:
Just to second the recommendations of :
Ballads
John Coltrane and Johnny Hartman
Duke Ellington and John Coltrane
as being bar far among Coltrane's "lightest".
This is pretty standard stuff compared to his post-"A Love Supreme"
recordings. But then "A Love Supreme" is a must-have for any Jazz
collection
Again, I would recommend "Blue Train" as a good hard bop recording.
"My Favorite Things" and "Coltrane's Sound" have not gotten to be too far
our there yet.
"Soultrane" and "Lush Life" from his Prestige recording period are also easy
to listen to.
Good luck.
Steve
Alan Young
<david.r...@gmx.net> wrote:
There's a reason for listening to Coltrane, rather than (say) Houston
Person, and if you just look for the easiest stuff, you never get
there.
So by all means, start with "Coltrane Lite" if you wish (Brian gave you
a good list of these), but don't stop there.
Next step would some sessions where Coltrane plays in the stretched-out
style that he's famous for, but within familiar forms. Blue Train is a
good example; so are Olé Coltrane, Coltrane's Sound, and Africa Brass.
Then, keep listening to A Love Supreme, because this is where the it
all comes together, and it will become more satisfying as you get more
accustomed to hearing it.
There is plenty of Coltrane that really *is* hairy and structureless;
it's okay (IMO) if you never get to like Om. But there are a lot of
lovely tunes on the earlier sessions, even if there are difficult
moments as well. Build up your tolerance for chaos, and you'll find it
can be an enhancement to all kinds of music.
Another approach would be to go to some live shows by
Coltrane-influenced horn players -- Pharoah Sanders is still touring!
-- because sometimes the wilder side of the saxophone makes more sense
in a live concert than it does if you only hear recordings.
--
Alan
http://www.hummingbear.net/~aayoung/Jazz/jazz.html
I dreamed of a life that was pure and true
I dreamed of a job only I could do...
---Monk's Dream
ric
I think "My Favorite Things" meets the "accessible" criteria. Same with
"Coltrane Plays the Blues", IMO.
And, of course, the classic "Blue Train" (as you know.)
--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...
Myth
"Alan Young" <aay...@sonic.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:260820031025310544%aay...@sonic.net...
> In article <bifio1$6u2$1...@news.net.uni-c.dk>, David Rasmussen
> <david.r...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > For a beginner, some Coltrane can sound really really hairy and without
> > any structure at all. What is the easiest album to listen to for a
> > beginner? I've bought "A Love Supreme" because it was supposed to be
> > accessible, but I don't find it to be excatly that. "Blue Train" which I
> > have also bought is easier, I think. So what are the three "lightests"
> > Coltrane albums?
>
> There's a reason for listening to Coltrane, rather than (say) Houston
> Person, and if you just look for the easiest stuff, you never get
> there.
>
> So by all means, start with "Coltrane Lite" if you wish (Brian gave you
> a good list of these), but don't stop there.
>
> Next step would some sessions where Coltrane plays in the stretched-out
> style that he's famous for, but within familiar forms. Blue Train is a
> good example; so are Olé Coltrane, Coltrane's Sound, and Africa Brass.
>
> Then, keep listening to A Love Supreme, because this is where the it
> all comes together, and it will become more satisfying as you get more
> accustomed to hearing it.
>
> There is plenty of Coltrane that really *is* hairy and structureless;
> it's okay (IMO) if you never get to like Om. But there are a lot of
> lovely tunes on the earlier sessions, even if there are difficult
> moments as well. Build up your tolerance for chaos, and you'll find it
> can be an enhancement to all kinds of music.
That's a very good point
> Another approach would be to go to some live shows by
> Coltrane-influenced horn players -- Pharoah Sanders is still touring!
> -- because sometimes the wilder side of the saxophone makes more sense
> in a live concert than it does if you only hear recordings.
That's an even better point, first time I realized that was back in the days
when the "Woodstock" movie came to Denmark and I saw as well as heard Jimi
Hendrix play the national anthem. The American of course. Suddently all the
sounds made sense.
Take care,
Tom
JC Martin
> David Rasmussen wrote:
>
> > For a beginner, some Coltrane can sound really really hairy and without
> > any structure at all. What is the easiest album to listen to for a
> > beginner? I've bought "A Love Supreme" because it was supposed to be
> > accessible, but I don't find it to be excatly that. "Blue Train" which I
> > have also bought is easier, I think. So what are the three "lightests"
> > Coltrane albums?
>
> I think "My Favorite Things" meets the "accessible" criteria. Same with
> "Coltrane Plays the Blues", IMO.
>
> And, of course, the classic "Blue Train" (as you know.)
A lot of Coltrane newbies tend to dig "...Plays The Blues" I find.
-JC
mazzolata
I think it depends what direction you're approaching from. I came to
Jazz from the more experimental end of Rock, and immediately took to
things like A Love Supreme and Meditations, whereas I found his earlier
stuff too bland. It took me long time to work back from Trane, Mingus
and Miles back to Monk and Bird !
I guess for someone coming from the bland faux-jazz that they play on
lite-radio, it could be a lot different ;-)
JC Martin
news:3F4BC8...@hotmail.com...
> JC Martin wrote:
> > "ric" <nos...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3F4BAA24...@home.com...
> >
> >>David Rasmussen wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>For a beginner, some Coltrane can sound really really hairy and without
> >>>any structure at all. What is the easiest album to listen to for a
> >>>beginner? I've bought "A Love Supreme" because it was supposed to be
> >>>accessible, but I don't find it to be excatly that. "Blue Train" which
I
> >>>have also bought is easier, I think. So what are the three "lightests"
> >>>Coltrane albums?
> >>
> >>I think "My Favorite Things" meets the "accessible" criteria. Same with
> >>"Coltrane Plays the Blues", IMO.
> >>
> >>And, of course, the classic "Blue Train" (as you know.)
> >
> >
> >
> > A lot of Coltrane newbies tend to dig "...Plays The Blues" I find.
> >
> > -JC
> >
> >
>
> I think it depends what direction you're approaching from. I came to
> Jazz from the more experimental end of Rock, and immediately took to
> things like A Love Supreme and Meditations, whereas I found his earlier
> stuff too bland. It took me long time to work back from Trane, Mingus
> and Miles back to Monk and Bird !
>
> I guess for someone coming from the bland faux-jazz that they play on
> lite-radio, it could be a lot different ;-)
I turned on to Trane's solo work via an Archie Shepp album titled "Four For
Trane". Of course, I had heard Trane's work with Miles and such before that
through my Dad's record collection. But this Shepp record inspired me to
buy "A Love Supreme". So we all have our own routes.
If I'm turning on an adult to Trane, I usually prescribe the more
conservative route. With the younger college crowd I recommend the more
"out" stuff. The kids these days have really opened up to atonal music.
-JC
David Rasmussen
>
> There's a reason for listening to Coltrane, rather than (say) Houston
> Person, and if you just look for the easiest stuff, you never get
> there.
>
> So by all means, start with "Coltrane Lite" if you wish (Brian gave you
> a good list of these), but don't stop there.
>
I did not intend to stop there. But I wouldn't perform open heart
surgery without years of training and experience. You have to start
somewhere.
/David
David Rasmussen
>
> I think it depends what direction you're approaching from. I came to
> Jazz from the more experimental end of Rock
What end is that? Examples?
/David
Guy Berger
something that can comfortably fade into the background then the
suggestions for Ballads and the Johnny Hartman album are right up your
alley. Trane's playing is very gentle on these.
The Prestige stuff and Blue Train is accessible in that Trane is
playing hard bop. But Trane's playing much more aggressive (but not
avant-garde) than on the music outlined above. Soultrane, Blue Train,
the self-titled album on Prestige, Lush Life and a bunch of albums fit
in this category.
Finally, I think that many people here would find the Atlantics and
early Impulse albums (through Crescent, or maybe even up to John
Coltrane Quartet Plays) to be pretty accessible. There's some
experimentation on here and Trane can get pretty intense at times
(particularly on the live material), but nothing especially shocking.
Guy
JC Martin
news:bigjpv$n2i$2...@news.net.uni-c.dk...
Probably music that falls under the banner of post-rock (like Tortoise),
indie-rock (groups like Sonic Youth), Jam (Grateful Dead & Phish), Prog
(Eno, Soft Machine, Robert Wyatt, King Crimson), etc. I can see fans of the
above music getting into Coltane's more latter-day work.
-JC
sum1
> For a beginner, some Coltrane can sound really really hairy and without
> any structure at all.
Not just beginners, Im afraid.
sum1
> There's a reason for listening to Coltrane, rather than (say) Houston
> Person, and if you just look for the easiest stuff, you never get
> there.
Get where? You never stated the reason.
mazzolata
you're right about Sonic Youth and Tortoise, very very wrong about Phish
;-)
Also: Captain Beefheart, Tom Waits (later works), Eno & early Roxy
Music, Punk (Clash, Jam, Fall) and early post-punk (Joy Division,
Talking Heads), Birthday Party, Laughing Clowns, electronica like
Autechre and Fennesz .. and so much more.
mazzolata
is this an interrogation?
Mark Eisenman
people would be the one he did with Johnny Hartman.
I can't see anybody not enjoying that recording, from the biggest Trane fan
to the most conservative TinPanAlley-aholic
Mark
please visit
www.jazzpiano.ca
JC Martin
> <david.r...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > For a beginner, some Coltrane can sound really really hairy and without
> > any structure at all. What is the easiest album to listen to for a
> > beginner? I've bought "A Love Supreme" because it was supposed to be
> > accessible, but I don't find it to be excatly that. "Blue Train" which I
> > have also bought is easier, I think. So what are the three "lightests"
> > Coltrane albums?
>
> There's a reason for listening to Coltrane, rather than (say) Houston
> Person, and if you just look for the easiest stuff, you never get
> there.
True, Houston is a limited player---but boy does his groove hard.
-JC
JC Martin
> JC Martin wrote:
> > "David Rasmussen" <david.r...@gmx.net> wrote in message
> > news:bigjpv$n2i$2...@news.net.uni-c.dk...
> >
> >>mazzolata wrote:
> >>
> >>>I think it depends what direction you're approaching from. I came to
> >>>Jazz from the more experimental end of Rock
> >>
> >>What end is that? Examples?
> >
> >
> >
> > Probably music that falls under the banner of post-rock (like Tortoise),
> > indie-rock (groups like Sonic Youth), Jam (Grateful Dead & Phish), Prog
> > (Eno, Soft Machine, Robert Wyatt, King Crimson), etc. I can see fans of
the
> > above music getting into Coltane's more latter-day work.
> >
> > -JC
> >
> >
>
> you're right about Sonic Youth and Tortoise, very very wrong about Phish
> ;-)
*LOL* What do you mean? Seriously...I'm not a big Phish booster, but a lot
of their fans seem to appreciate Coltrane's more "out" work.
-JC
Nick
Here's a simple guideline you can follow. Anything recorded in the
fifties, you're safe. As you move into the 60's, things become less
and less accessible. 1964 and beyond, be afraid, be very afraid.
I agree with you about "A Love Supreme." A classic album, yes. An easy
album to jump right into for a beginner, no. I'm far from a beginner
and I still don't really get it.
Nick
I think with prog fans, it could go either way. Someone who likes the
chaos and dissonance of, say, Yes' "Relayer," might relate to more
avant garde sounds. But prog is also known for its structure, tight
unison lines, consistent time pulse (even though it might be in a
weird signature like 5/7), and usually somewhat of tonal relationship
to rock (i.e., guitar sounds). Don't know if all this is a good
precursor to late-period Trane.
Eno is certainly an innovative, experimental kind of guy. But he's
considered by many to be the father of "ambient" music, i.e., the
spacey, mellow stuff you can play in the background (thus his album
title "Music for Airports"), so Eno fans might find a much closer
musical connection to smooth jazz than they would to avant garde jazz.
SGribetz
Michael Black
years ago was "Live at the Village Vanguard". I had no problems with it
from the beginning, and "A Love Supreme" was no problem either. I've
bought some Miles Davis (the obvious ones), but I'm more tempted to
risk money on John Coltrane than more Miles Davis albums.
And yes, I've listened to the Grateful Dead for a quarter century.
Michael
ric
> > I think "My Favorite Things" meets the "accessible" criteria. Same with
> > "Coltrane Plays the Blues", IMO.
> >
> > And, of course, the classic "Blue Train" (as you know.)
>
> A lot of Coltrane newbies tend to dig "...Plays The Blues" I find.
Anything on Atlantic from 1960 is good, IMO.
Carnak
Carnak.
Toni Lassila
>Here's a simple guideline you can follow. Anything recorded in the
>fifties, you're safe. As you move into the 60's, things become less
>and less accessible. 1964 and beyond, be afraid, be very afraid.
For goodness sake, be careful. Otherwise those Love Supreme and
Ascension CD's might jump up and permanently affect your understanding
of harmonic improvisation.
Kids, just say "no" (to late Coltrane).
David Rasmussen
>
> There's a reason for listening to Coltrane, rather than (say) Houston
> Person, and if you just look for the easiest stuff, you never get
> there.
>
Also, the reason for listening to Coltrane can be that you like his tone
and his musicality, but would like to start with something that you have
a chance to understand. The reason is not necesarily that you want to
listen to aggressive free/avantgarde/acid-jazz.
/David
David Rasmussen
>
> Probably music that falls under the banner of post-rock (like Tortoise),
> indie-rock (groups like Sonic Youth), Jam (Grateful Dead & Phish), Prog
> (Eno, Soft Machine, Robert Wyatt, King Crimson), etc. I can see fans of the
> above music getting into Coltane's more latter-day work.
>
I listen to stuff like this too, and I don't find it helping me when I'm
listening to Coltrane.
/David
David Rasmussen
>>
>
> you're right about Sonic Youth and Tortoise, very very wrong about Phish
> ;-)
>
> Also: Captain Beefheart, Tom Waits (later works), Eno & early Roxy
> Music, Punk (Clash, Jam, Fall) and early post-punk (Joy Division,
> Talking Heads), Birthday Party, Laughing Clowns, electronica like
> Autechre and Fennesz .. and so much more.
>
I also listen to some of these things, and it doesn't help me either
when listening to Coltrane.
/David
David Rasmussen
> David Rasmussen wrote:
>
>> mazzolata wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I think it depends what direction you're approaching from. I came to
>>> Jazz from the more experimental end of Rock
>>
>>
>>
>> What end is that? Examples?
>>
>> /David
>>
>
> is this an interrogation?
>
>
No. It's a question.
/David
mazzolata
> What's wrong with Houston Person?
>
>
Dallas Person says he's a weenie.
DeRayMi
<<edit>>
> Then, keep listening to A Love Supreme, because this is where the it
> all comes together, and it will become more satisfying as you get more
> accustomed to hearing it.
>
I don't see how you can say this categorically. I have actually found
it less satisfying after repeated listens than I did immediately.
That may prove that I am dense, but at any rate, there's no guarantee
that a listener will only grow to enjoy it more.
<<edit>>
JC Martin
It's not that it helps. But fans of this music tend to dig Coltrane's "out"
work. I know this from experience.
-JC
JC Martin
news:1d97fb30.03082...@posting.google.com...
Nick, you find me *one* Eno follower who likes smooth jazz. I know many Eno
fans and smooth jazz is not what they listen to. I like ambient and
electronic music as well. But I loath smooth jazz. Besides, Eno has done
many things besides ambient music.
-JC
Zoot
> David Rasmussen wrote:
> > mazzolata wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I think it depends what direction you're approaching from. I came to
> >> Jazz from the more experimental end of Rock
> >
> >
> > What end is that? Examples?
> >
> > /David
> >
>
> is this an interrogation?
soft machine
captain beef hearts
Todd rundgrin
9" nails
frank?
Myth
"JC Martin" <jcma...@sonic.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:S643b.15717$dk4.5...@typhoon.sonic.net...
True, I'm one.
I like ambient and
> electronic music as well. But I loath smooth jazz. Besides, Eno has done
> many things besides ambient music.
>
> -JC
Eno is a very special guy IMO, not just for what he did as a "musician",
David Bowie once called him "the worlds greatest amateur musician", but also
as a producer, like promoting and producing bands like Talking Heads,
although that might not endear him in this ng :-)
Take care,
Tom
>
>
>
mazzolata
>
>
> Nick, you find me *one* Eno follower who likes smooth jazz. I know many Eno
> fans and smooth jazz is not what they listen to. I like ambient and
> electronic music as well. But I loath smooth jazz. Besides, Eno has done
> many things besides ambient music.
Really. I would think that smooth jazz" would appeal more to the Celine
Dion or Billy Joel fan ...
JC Martin
news:3f4cde1a$0$5167$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk...
It does for me. I love his synth work with Roxy Music and 801 too. So
minimalist, but so right.
Again though, you're not going to find an Eno fan who likes smooth jazz.
-JC
Guy Berger
David,
Soft Machine's music in the early 70s is heavily influenced by Coltrane
-- not only the lengthy modal vamps, but the heads as well. Listen to
Elton Dean and (more interestingly, since he is not a horn player) Mike
Ratledge; they've obviously listened to Trane quite a bit.
This connection wasn't obvious when I started listening to this stuff
(I heard SM before JC) but now I hear it every time.
Guy
Brian Rost
> I also listen to some of these things, and it doesn't help me either
> when listening to Coltrane.
I came to jazz from rock years ago and as far as "helping", well after
listening to a lot of Zappa, Beefheart and Crimson a record like "A Love
Supreme" worked for me on a pure sonic level. At the time I could care
less about swing, harmonic beauty, etc. I just wanted loud noise ;)
I spent a long time listening ONLY to late Trane, Shepp, Sun Ra, Dolphy,
etc. The more "out" the better. I'm not sure I realy "got" it but I
liked it.
--
Brian Rost
Stargen, Inc.
**********************************************************************
sum1
>
> Nick, you find me *one* Eno follower who likes smooth jazz. I know many Eno
> fans and smooth jazz is not what they listen to. I like ambient and
> electronic music as well. But I loath smooth jazz. Besides, Eno has done
> many things besides ambient music.
>
> -JC
Of course it all depends on how you define "fan" and "follower," but I
like both Eno - and smooth jazz.
So there you go, JC.
Nick
> > considered by many to be the father of "ambient" music, i.e., the
> > spacey, mellow stuff you can play in the background (thus his album
> > title "Music for Airports"), so Eno fans might find a much closer
> > musical connection to smooth jazz than they would to avant >garde jazz.
>
> Nick, you find me *one* Eno follower who likes smooth jazz. I know many Eno
> fans and smooth jazz is not what they listen to. I like ambient and
> electronic music as well. But I loath smooth jazz. Besides, Eno has done
> many things besides ambient music.
>
> -JC
Well, sum1 has spoken, so I guess we found at least one. ;-)
It wouldn't surprise me that most Eno fans don't listen to smooth jazz
in large numbers. Listeners who enjoy the style of Eno (or any
"ambient" or "space" music) probably aren't looking to expand their
horizons into *any* form of jazz (present company excepted). I was
simply making the point that, in many ways, ambient music is probably
closer to smooth jazz than avant garde jazz. Both ambient and much
smooth jazz are designed to function as unobtrusive background music;
both emphasize simple, repetitious riffs with a minimum of dissonance;
both utilize electronic sounds (usually); both make use of mostly
soothing timbres. (Of course, there's plenty of smooth jazz that is a
lot more dynamic than this description implies.)
Avant garde jazz is dissonant, chaotic, non-pattern-oriented,
rhythmically and harmonically all over the map (if any map can in fact
be discerned), and mostly played on acoustic instruments. It makes
liberal use of harsh, provocative tones (e.g., growling), and is
usually looking to grab your attention. All qualities usually avoided
in ambient music.
On the other hand, you could argue that ambient has a strong
connection to avant garde jazz in that both are "experimental" and not
concerned with adhering to any particular commercial formula. This is
more of a philosophical commonality than a tonal one, however.
ric
> > Nick, you find me *one* Eno follower who likes smooth jazz. I know many Eno
> > fans and smooth jazz is not what they listen to. I like ambient and
> > electronic music as well. But I loath smooth jazz. Besides, Eno has done
> > many things besides ambient music.
> >
> > -JC
>
> Well, sum1 has spoken, so I guess we found at least one. ;-)
LOL! sum1 would admit to being a cross dressing transvestite if it would
make JC look incorrect.
sum1
> Nick wrote:
>
> > > Nick, you find me *one* Eno follower who likes smooth jazz. I know many Eno
> > > fans and smooth jazz is not what they listen to. I like ambient and
> > > electronic music as well. But I loath smooth jazz. Besides, Eno has done
> > > many things besides ambient music.
> > >
> > > -JC
> >
> > Well, sum1 has spoken, so I guess we found at least one. ;-)
>
> LOL! sum1 would admit to being a cross dressing transvestite if it would
> make JC look incorrect.
Well, I might at that, ric. But in this case there was no need for
fabrication.
Besides, JC does a good enough job making himself look the fool. He
hardly needs help.
sum1
> Again though, you're not going to find an Eno fan who likes smooth jazz.
>
> -JC
You already have, my darling.
mazzolata
The exception, not the rule. There will always be people who
misunderstand Eno, because some of his music is, lets say, unaggressive.
But something like Music for Airports is actually closer to Satie and
Debussy than to that aural wallpaper that is called "New Age". Not to
mention that aural wallpaper with saxaphones, called "smooth jazz". Why
don't you listen to "No Pussyfooting" by Eno and Fripp, then report back
to us.
JC Martin
This is where your argument falls short. Avant garde jazz encompasses so
much more than that.
BTW, I know quite a few Eno fans and every single one of them loathes smooth
jazz, yet many enjoy artists such as Even Parker, Steve Lacy, Derek Bailey,
etc. You're theories need more research.
-JC
Myth
"mazzolata" <mazz...@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3F4F5573...@hotmail.com...
> sum1 wrote:
> > "JC Martin" <jcma...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:<kp53b.15746$dk4.5...@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> >
> >
> >
> >>Again though, you're not going to find an Eno fan who likes smooth jazz.
> >>
> >>-JC
> >
> >
> >
> > You already have, my darling.
>
> The exception, not the rule. There will always be people who
> misunderstand Eno, because some of his music is, lets say, unaggressive.
> But something like Music for Airports is actually closer to Satie and
> Debussy than to that aural wallpaper that is called "New Age".
Try taking the LP and put it on 45 rpm, that'll sorta prove this point
Not to
> mention that aural wallpaper with saxaphones, called "smooth jazz". Why
> don't you listen to "No Pussyfooting" by Eno and Fripp, then report back
> to us.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
muhal
> The exception, not the rule. There will always be people who
> misunderstand Eno, because some of his music is, lets say, unaggressive.
> But something like Music for Airports is actually closer to Satie and
> Debussy than to that aural wallpaper that is called "New Age". Not to
> mention that aural wallpaper with saxaphones, called "smooth jazz".
Moreover, it is an undeniable intellectual challenge to make music designed
NOT to be listened to. MFA actually makes more sense when played as background
to some other activity, or listened to for no more than 5-15 minutes, than as
a beginning-to-end experience. In other words, the music works better in the
context for which Eno designed it, than it does in the usual and common context
in which music fans commonly experience music.
This is freaking hard to do. By way of contrast, consider Duke Ellington's
soundtrack for the Otto Preminger movie ANATOMY OF A MURDER, or Miles Davis'
ditto for ASCENSEUR POUR L'ECHAFAUD; both are brilliant music but IMO end up
detracting from the movie, because their very brilliance demands attention
that should go to the film. In other words, they work betterin the usual and
common context for experiencing music than in the context for which they were
designed.
Eno is a very smart person and phenomenally talented shaper of sound.
J Bongo Zed
news:b54e5a1a.03082...@posting.google.com
>
> Moreover, it is an undeniable intellectual challenge to make music designed
> NOT to be listened to.
It's usually called noise, although some call it "avante-garde jazz".
And it's actually not too difficult to make; kids fooling around do it
all the time.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Warren Senders
>unison lines, consistent time pulse (even though it might be in a
>weird signature like 5/7),
5/7 is a weird signature indeed. Henry Cowell's rhythmic notational
system would allow such a time signature, but AFAIK nobody in contemporary
music is using it. Details can be seen in his "New Musical Resources."
Or did you just mean 5/8, 7/8, or some combination?
WS
Mike C.
--
Mike C.
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who
could
not hear the music."
--Friedrich Nietzsche
"Warren Senders" <war...@aol.comqwerty> wrote in message
news:20030830001821...@mb-m05.aol.com...
sum1
> sum1 wrote:
> > "JC Martin" <jcma...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<kp53b.15746$dk4.5...@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> >
> >
> >
> >>Again though, you're not going to find an Eno fan who likes smooth jazz.
> >>
> >>-JC
> >
> >
> >
> > You already have, my darling.
>
> The exception, not the rule. There will always be people who
> misunderstand Eno, because some of his music is, lets say, unaggressive.
And there will always be people who insist that the only proper way to
understand a piece of music, a book, or a painting is THEIR way.
sum1
> mazzolata <mazz...@hotmail.com>:
> > The exception, not the rule. There will always be people who
> > misunderstand Eno, because some of his music is, lets say, unaggressive.
> > But something like Music for Airports is actually closer to Satie and
> > Debussy than to that aural wallpaper that is called "New Age". Not to
> > mention that aural wallpaper with saxaphones, called "smooth jazz".
>
> Moreover, it is an undeniable intellectual challenge to make music designed
> NOT to be listened to. MFA actually makes more sense when played as background
> to some other activity, or listened to for no more than 5-15 minutes, than as
> a beginning-to-end experience. In other words, the music works better in the
> context for which Eno designed it, than it does in the usual and common context
> in which music fans commonly experience music.
Some here have suggested that smooth jazz is aural wallpaper, music
"played as background to some other activity." If that is so, and if
making such music is an intellectual challenge, then smooth jazz
artists must rank as modern geniuses.
sum1
> This is where your argument falls short. Avant garde jazz encompasses so
> much more than that.
>
> BTW, I know quite a few Eno fans and every single one of them loathes smooth
> jazz, yet many enjoy artists such as Even Parker, Steve Lacy, Derek Bailey,
> etc. You're theories need more research.
>
> -JC
It's interesting that you call Nic on an exception, but are not
willing to allow them yourselves.
No doubt avant garde encompasses music that is not loud and dissonant,
but a lot of it is exactly that. On the other hand, there is no
question that there are people who enjoy Eno that also enjoy smooth
jazz.
Toni Lassila
>mu...@comcast.net (muhal) wrote in message news:<b54e5a1a.03082...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>> Moreover, it is an undeniable intellectual challenge to make music designed
>> NOT to be listened to.
>
>Some here have suggested that smooth jazz is aural wallpaper, music
>"played as background to some other activity." If that is so, and if
>making such music is an intellectual challenge, then smooth jazz
>artists must rank as modern geniuses.
Following this announcement, this newsgroup will now implode in five
seconds. Have a nice day.
Nick
> > It wouldn't surprise me that most Eno fans don't listen to smooth jazz
> > in large numbers. Listeners who enjoy the style of Eno (or any
> > "ambient" or "space" music) probably aren't looking to expand their
> > horizons into *any* form of jazz (present company excepted). I was
> > simply making the point that, in many ways, ambient music is probably
> > closer to smooth jazz than avant garde jazz. Both ambient and much
> > smooth jazz are designed to function as unobtrusive background music;
> > both emphasize simple, repetitious riffs with a minimum of dissonance;
> > both utilize electronic sounds (usually); both make use of mostly
> > soothing timbres. (Of course, there's plenty of smooth jazz that is a
> > lot more dynamic than this description implies.)
> >
> > Avant garde jazz is dissonant, chaotic, non-pattern-oriented,
> > rhythmically and harmonically all over the map (if any map can in fact
> > be discerned), and mostly played on acoustic instruments.
>
JC Martin wrote:
> This is where your argument falls short. Avant garde jazz encompasses so
> much more than that.
I think I've presented a pretty good list of the basic characteristics
of avant garde jazz from a tonal perspective. How would you describe
it differently?
>
> BTW, I know quite a few Eno fans and every single one of them loathes smooth
> jazz, yet many enjoy artists such as Even Parker, Steve Lacy, Derek Bailey,
> etc. You're theories need more research.
>
> -JC
I don't know ... I still say the aural bond of Eno to smooth jazz is
stronger than the philosophical bond of Eno to avant garde jazz. I
suggest you drop in on some of your friends unannounced some time; I
think they're listening to smooth jazz but just don't tell you because
they know it would piss you off.
:-)
Nick
> misunderstand Eno, because some of his music is, lets say, unaggressive.
> But something like Music for Airports is actually closer to Satie and
> Debussy than to that aural wallpaper that is called "New Age".
One of my favorite ambient artists, Tim Story, also claims Satie as a
major inspiration. What I like about his music, and probably what some
of you like about Eno, is that on the surface the music is relatively
simple and unaggressive and serves well as background music. But there
are levels of subtlety and nuance that become deeply rewarding if you
choose to listen closely. I will admit that the same cannot be said of
much smooth jazz, nor avant garde jazz, IMO.
Not to
> mention that aural wallpaper with saxaphones, called "smooth jazz". Why
> don't you listen to "No Pussyfooting" by Eno and Fripp, then report back
> to us.
I have no doubt that Eno's various producing gigs and collaborations
have resulted in sounds that would not be considered "aural
wallpaper."
mazzolata
You're perfectly welcome to misunderstand it as you see fit. It appears
to be something you've made into your special niche.
Alan Young
<nick...@aol.com> wrote:
> I still say the aural bond of Eno to smooth jazz is
> stronger than the philosophical bond of Eno to avant garde jazz.
You can say that, but I like Eno, and I like mainstream jazz -- for
different reasons. Um, what does this have to do with Coltrane, again??
--
Alan
http://www.hummingbear.net/~aayoung/Jazz/jazz.html
I dreamed of a life that was pure and true
I dreamed of a job only I could do...
---Monk's Dream
Alan Young
> probably what some
> of you like about Eno, is that on the surface the music is relatively
> simple and unaggressive and serves well as background music. But there
> are levels of subtlety and nuance that become deeply rewarding if you
> choose to listen closely. I will admit that the same cannot be said of
> much smooth jazz, nor avant garde jazz, IMO.
There we go. Now you're getting it.
Bill
> For a beginner, some Coltrane can sound really really hairy and without
> any structure at all. What is the easiest album to listen to for a
> beginner? I've bought "A Love Supreme" because it was supposed to be
> accessible, but I don't find it to be excatly that. "Blue Train" which I
> have also bought is easier, I think.
There's nothing that says you have to like any Coltrane including A Love
Supreme. I have listened to ALS a number of times and have never liked it
much despite all the hype IMO about it. I also didn't like Live at Birdland
all that much.
Like you, I like Blue Trane a lot more. Dig what you dig and explore in
that direction and don't feel the need to like something or someone's music
just because you think the rest of the world likes it and you're the only
one who doesn't. Your not the only one.
Fortunately there's an endless supply of music (jazz and nonjazz) you'll
think is so excellent once you discover it that there's no good reason to
chase after stuff that just doesn't float your boat. My recommendation is
to explore more those artists you really get off on the first time you heard
them.
I have found after listening to some Coltrane that I don't find the music on
his records all that interesting so I don't feel the need to get more of his
stuff. Instead I get more stuff from artists that I do find interesting.
I've done that with the Grateful Dead, Miles, Freddy Hubbard and been nicely
rewarded. The next guy's releases that I need to get more of is Eric Dolphy
since I liked Out To Lunch.
Bill
So what are the three "lightests"
> Coltrane albums?
>
> /David
>
JC Martin
> mazzolata <mazz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3F4F5573...@hotmail.com>...
> >
> > The exception, not the rule. There will always be people who
> > misunderstand Eno, because some of his music is, lets say, unaggressive.
> > But something like Music for Airports is actually closer to Satie and
> > Debussy than to that aural wallpaper that is called "New Age".
>
> One of my favorite ambient artists, Tim Story, also claims Satie as a
> major inspiration. What I like about his music, and probably what some
> of you like about Eno, is that on the surface the music is relatively
> simple and unaggressive and serves well as background music. But there
> are levels of subtlety and nuance that become deeply rewarding if you
> choose to listen closely. I will admit that the same cannot be said of
> much smooth jazz, nor avant garde jazz, IMO.
No subtlety or nuance in Evan Parker's or Steve Lacy's playing?
-JC
Nick
I actually meant to say 5/4 and just wasn't being careful about it.
Nick
> In article <1d97fb30.03083...@posting.google.com>, Nick
> <nick...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I still say the aural bond of Eno to smooth jazz is
> > stronger than the philosophical bond of Eno to avant garde jazz.
>
> You can say that, but I like Eno, and I like mainstream jazz -- for
> different reasons.
That makes sense, because some mainstream jazz (e.g., "Kind of Blue")
has the kind of mood and structure that would appeal to fans of
Eno/ambient music. I would argue that one of the reasons KOB is a
million+ seller is that in addition to having a lot of artistic depth,
it also functions adequately as background music.
Of course, a lot of mainstream jazz (and all avant garde jazz that I'm
familiar with) has little or nothing in common with Eno/ambient, which
is where "for different reasons" comes into play.
> Um, what does this have to do with Coltrane, again??
One poster listed certain prog rock/ambient artists (Eno among them)
and stated that if you liked that kind of stuff, you might be
receptive to Coltrane's late-period avant garde music. I disagreed.
Marc Sabatella
> 5/7 is a weird signature indeed. Henry Cowell's rhythmic notational
> system would allow such a time signature, but AFAIK nobody in
contemporary
> music is using it.
And one would be hard-pressed to hear any difference this and 5/8 or
5/4; the only difference would be that 5/7 would be much harder to read
(the basic unit of pulse being a seven-tuplet)
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
sum1
>
> There's nothing that says you have to like any Coltrane including A Love
> Supreme. I have listened to ALS a number of times and have never liked it
> much despite all the hype IMO about it. I also didn't like Live at Birdland
> all that much.
>
> Like you, I like Blue Trane a lot more. Dig what you dig and explore in
> that direction and don't feel the need to like something or someone's music
> just because you think the rest of the world likes it and you're the only
> one who doesn't. Your not the only one.
>
> Fortunately there's an endless supply of music (jazz and nonjazz) you'll
> think is so excellent once you discover it that there's no good reason to
> chase after stuff that just doesn't float your boat. My recommendation is
> to explore more those artists you really get off on the first time you heard
> them.
>
> I have found after listening to some Coltrane that I don't find the music on
> his records all that interesting so I don't feel the need to get more of his
> stuff. Instead I get more stuff from artists that I do find interesting.
>
> I've done that with the Grateful Dead, Miles, Freddy Hubbard and been nicely
> rewarded. The next guy's releases that I need to get more of is Eric Dolphy
> since I liked Out To Lunch.
>
> Bill
Bill, this is one of the most reasonable posts I've ever read at rmb.
Go out, explore, find what you like and be secure in your tastes and
interests.
sum1
> >
> > And there will always be people who insist that the only proper way to
> > understand a piece of music, a book, or a painting is THEIR way.
>
> You're perfectly welcome to misunderstand it as you see fit. It appears
> to be something you've made into your special niche.
Just call me iconoclast.
Warren Senders
>> system would allow such a time signature, but AFAIK nobody in
>contemporary
>> music is using it.
>
>And one would be hard-pressed to hear any difference this and 5/8 or
>5/4; the only difference would be that 5/7 would be much harder to read
>(the basic unit of pulse being a seven-tuplet)
Unless of course the beings playing the music had
seven fingers and a thumb on each hand, or some
other morphology which led to sevens as the
default counting unit. But this moves us into the
realms of science fiction, I suppose.
WS
mazzolata
>
> Fortunately there's an endless supply of music (jazz and nonjazz) you'll
> think is so excellent once you discover it that there's no good reason to
> chase after stuff that just doesn't float your boat. My recommendation is
> to explore more those artists you really get off on the first time you heard
> them.
It's been my experience that the music you like a lot the first time you
hear it isn't necessarily the music you still like best the 20th time
you listen to it. What you get out of it is at least partially related
to what you put into it.
mazzolata
that's not really the word i was looking for...
sum1
> sum1 wrote:
> > mazzolata <mazz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3F50B443...@hotmail.com>...
> >
> >>>And there will always be people who insist that the only proper way to
> >>>understand a piece of music, a book, or a painting is THEIR way.
> >>
> >>You're perfectly welcome to misunderstand it as you see fit. It appears
> >>to be something you've made into your special niche.
> >
> >
> >
> > Just call me iconoclast.
>
> that's not really the word i was looking for...
Close enough though, eh?
sum1
> Bill wrote:
>
> >
> > Fortunately there's an endless supply of music (jazz and nonjazz) you'll
> > think is so excellent once you discover it that there's no good reason to
> > chase after stuff that just doesn't float your boat. My recommendation is
> > to explore more those artists you really get off on the first time you heard
> > them.
>
> It's been my experience that the music you like a lot the first time you
> hear it isn't necessarily the music you still like best the 20th time
> you listen to it. What you get out of it is at least partially related
> to what you put into it.
On the other hand, there are plenty of times when you still dislike
something the 20th, 21st and 22nd time you hear it. Didn't the poster
state that he had tried but failed to find anything interesting in A
Love Supreme? Are you saying that the guy needs to keep listening?
That he hasn't tried hard enough?
ric
> It's been my experience that the music you like a lot the first time you
> hear it isn't necessarily the music you still like best the 20th time
> you listen to it. What you get out of it is at least partially related
> to what you put into it.
I wasn't very fond of McLaughlin's "Extrapolation", for example, when
I first heard it. Now, it is one of my favorites. It seems to me that
the more complex a recording is, the more it tends to "grow on you."
Another strike against "smooth jazz."
--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...
Bill
"mazzolata" wrote
>
> Bill wrote:
>
> >
> > Fortunately there's an endless supply of music (jazz and nonjazz) you'll
> > think is so excellent once you discover it that there's no good reason
to
> > chase after stuff that just doesn't float your boat. My recommendation
is
> > to explore more those artists you really get off on the first time you
heard
> > them.
>
> It's been my experience that the music you like a lot the first time you
> hear it isn't necessarily the music you still like best the 20th time
> you listen to it. What you get out of it is at least partially related
> to what you put into it.
Well I guess it depends on how one approaches music and what one is looking
for. My philosophy on approaching music is that there's an attractive
melody. In addition, there should be another instrument doing something in
relation to the thing playing the attractive melody such that the total is
greater than the sum of the parts.
A great example of this is Miles' Bitches Brew or the live Miles' album
released in 2001 from March 7, 1970 at the Fillmore East. Coltrane's A Love
Supreme on the other hand is basically a guy soloing by himself (relative to
what I wrote above) such that the total equals the sum of 1 (Coltrane). I'm
ignoring a low volume piano because that don't provide an adequate
interaction to my taste (too much in the background).
About the only guy that I know of that I can listen to solo without any
interaction with others is some Jerry Garcia and even in that case I have to
love the song (and love how he's playing on that song on the particular live
version I'm listening to). This is also true for Freddy Hubbard though but
not for the duration I can listen to Garcia.
I haven't listened to any Charlie Parker other than little snippets of it on
the radio. But if CP's CDs are basically him soloing with little
interaction with the other instruments, I think I would get bored relatively
quickly. I haven't listened to Duke Ellington much either but my knowledge
of his band leads me to think I'd like his music.
Miles only works for me when there's a lot of interaction between the
instruments. I could never take Miles if it was played in the fashion of
Coltrane like he is on A Love Supreme.
I like Eric Dolphy's Out To Lunch because of the interesting interplay
between the instruments. It's also why I am finding myself more and more
attracted to some classical music.
And I do agree that what one gets out of something is at least partially
related to what one puts into it. But giving something your undivided
attention doesn't guarantee you'll get off on it as I have found with a lot
of Coltrane.
Bill
Toni Lassila
>My philosophy on approaching music is that there's an attractive
>melody.
I presume this includes improvised melodies, otherwise we wouldn't be
discussing jazz. Attractive is highly subjective, so no one but you
can really say what that means.
>In addition, there should be another instrument doing something in
>relation to the thing playing the attractive melody such that the total is
>greater than the sum of the parts.
Musical interplay, now there's a requirement something that makes more
sense. I don't care much for solo albums either.
>A great example of this is Miles' Bitches Brew
Except that I wonder what you're concept of an "attractive melody" is,
since this isn't a very "melodic" album by any stretch of imagination.
>Coltrane's A Love Supreme on the other hand is basically a guy soloing by
>himself (relative to what I wrote above) such that the total equals the sum
>of 1 (Coltrane). I'm ignoring a low volume piano because that don't provide
>an adequate interaction to my taste (too much in the background).
You must have a different version from mine. Coltrane had possibly two
of the best sidemen of the time (at least for him), McCoy Tyner and
Elvin Jones, who were known for always being on the same wavelength
with Trane. I don't find Tyner's piano on, say, Resolution to be at
all "low volume" and think his excellent 2:06 long piano solo adds a
lot more to this recording than just Trane playing his sheets of
sound. And Jones is *always* there, working magic in the background.
>I haven't listened to any Charlie Parker other than little snippets of it on
>the radio. But if CP's CDs are basically him soloing with little
>interaction with the other instruments, I think I would get bored relatively
>quickly.
There's a CD release called "Bird And Diz" that has him in 1950 with
Dizzy, Monk and Buddy Rich. Among other things, they play "Leap Frog"
which is just Bird and Diz playing twos for the entire tune. Check it
out.
I think Bird played in enough jams to know how to interplay with a
whole bunch of different musicians. If some of his studio producers
picked invisible sidemen to bring Bird's playing to the foreground,
that was hardly his fault now was it?
>Miles only works for me when there's a lot of interaction between the
>instruments. I could never take Miles if it was played in the fashion of
>Coltrane like he is on A Love Supreme.
I think a lot of early Miles is just Miles with his trumpet with the
other musicians pushed in the background (a notable exception is the
work with Gil Evans). Like the famous brouhaha with him telling Monk
to lay off during his solo because he didn't like the chords Monk was
playing.
>I like Eric Dolphy's Out To Lunch because of the interesting interplay
>between the instruments. It's also why I am finding myself more and more
>attracted to some classical music.
If you like Dolphy and Ellington, you'll love Mingus. Seriously.
>And I do agree that what one gets out of something is at least partially
>related to what one puts into it. But giving something your undivided
>attention doesn't guarantee you'll get off on it as I have found with a lot
>of Coltrane.
Listening to a late-Coltrane album twenty times in a row is unlikely
to give you anything except possibly a headache, but listening to
various other artists recordings from around the same period and later
works influenced by Coltrane might help you later find something in
those albums that you didn't think was there before.
Or then it might not.
Guy Berger
> Well I guess it depends on how one approaches music and what one is looking
> for. My philosophy on approaching music is that there's an attractive
> melody. In addition, there should be another instrument doing something in
> relation to the thing playing the attractive melody such that the total is
> greater than the sum of the parts.
> Coltrane's A Love
> Supreme on the other hand is basically a guy soloing by himself (relative to
> what I wrote above) such that the total equals the sum of 1 (Coltrane). I'm
> ignoring a low volume piano because that don't provide an adequate
> interaction to my taste (too much in the background).
If A Love Supreme doesn't do anything for you, I can respect that.
However, your failure to notice the interaction between Coltrane and
Elvin Jones on a Love Supreme suggests that you haven't listened very
carefully to the recording.
Guy
np Keith Jarrett, Expectations
Eric Miller
Eno's concept of music that can be ignored, and (usually electronic) music
with no beat. I think the latter classification has been more prevalent
since "ambient" was co-opted by techno and artists like Aphex Twin made
"ambient" records that are far from background music. This type of ambient
goes back at least to the early 70s. The German band Neu! recorded beatless
songs that are really more of an unsettling suggestion of pent-up aggression
(to me) than anything else, and I wouldn't know what to call them besides
"ambient."
But I think jazz, especially early fusion, laid the foundation for both
types of ambient even before Eno or any German bands experimented with it.
On the one hand, insofar as background ambient developed into New Age and
music designed to be 'soothing,' early Return to Forever tracks like
"Crystal Silence" would appeal to people seeking a soothing experience. And
those sort of tracks may be a more streamlined version of ideas originally
debuted on "In a Silent Way." On the other hand, the whole genre of tense,
unsettling soundscapes was presaged by Miles Davis' stuff like "Little
Church," which is very dark and hard to classify and has no drums or
percussion. Incidently, my favorite Eno album - "On Land" - falls into this
category. It's ambient, but also very dark and demands more attention than
"Discreet Music" or "Music for Airports." I think fans of early, tone-poemy
fusion would like "On Land."
Any thoughts?
eric
mazzolata
Did I say that? Where ?
mazzolata
>
> There's a CD release called "Bird And Diz" that has him in 1950 with
> Dizzy, Monk and Buddy Rich. Among other things, they play "Leap Frog"
> which is just Bird and Diz playing twos for the entire tune. Check it
> out.
Actually, I always thought that Miles was a far more sympathetic partner
for Bird than Dizzy ever was.
Nick
undeniable intellectual challenge to make music designed NOT to be
to some other activity, or listened to for no more than 5-15 minutes,
than as a beginning-to-end experience. In other words, the music works
better in the context for which Eno designed it, than it does in the
usual and common context in which music fans commonly experience
music.
>
> sum1 wrote:
> Some here have suggested that smooth jazz is aural wallpaper, music
> "played as background to some other activity." If that is so, and if
> making such music is an intellectual challenge, then smooth jazz
> artists must rank as modern geniuses.
I don't think it's a huge challenge, or a sign of genius, to create
background music. There's plenty of bland, nondescript background
music for movies and TV that demonstrate this. The real challenge is
to create music that can function as background music, but also has
some artistic depth. If an artist of Duke Ellington's stature doesn't
create appropriate "aural wallpaper," it's not because they lack
talent, but because they are unaccustomed (or averse) to having to
make their music less interesting and therefore unobtrusive.
But let me clarify the "smooth jazz as background music" notion. It's
no secret that the current Clear Channel-ization of smooth jazz
stations dictates that only the most inoffensive and accessible stuff
gets played. I find a lot of the music on these stations bland and
uninteresting, which unfortunately obscures that fact that there's a
fair amount of more weighty jazz/pop/funk/R&B hybrid music out there,
and has been since at least the 1970's.
Mark Eisenman
war...@aol.comqwerty wrote on 8/30/03 9:04 PM:
Our ten fingers (five on each hand) would seem to have very little to do
with our predilection for the use of quarter time. (3/4 or 4/4 or 5/4)
Of course, it's obvious that our decimal system of numbers is related to 10
fingers (not 4 and a thumb plus four and a thumb), but I'm not so sure that
morphology has much to do with time signature denominators.
But hey, it's only my opinion based on no study of the subject.
Mark
Nick
> > One of my favorite ambient artists, Tim Story, also claims Satie as a
> > major inspiration. What I like about his music, and probably what some
> > of you like about Eno, is that on the surface the music is relatively
> > simple and unaggressive and serves well as background music. But there
> > are levels of subtlety and nuance that become deeply rewarding if you
> > choose to listen closely. I will admit that the same cannot be said of
> > much smooth jazz, nor avant garde jazz, IMO.
>
>
> No subtlety or nuance in Evan Parker's or Steve Lacy's playing?
>
> -JC
I haven't heard E. Parker, and have only heard/seen S. Lacy on a video
called "Reed Royalty." He sounded like someone trying to play bebop
without any regard to chord changes. I like to hear chord
substitutions and a healthy amount of dissonance on top of standard
changes (e.g., Coltrane's "Countdown," or Michael Brecker) but when
there's no reference at all to harmony it loses me. I realize this is
a standard approach in avant garde.
Of course, subtlety and nuance are highly subjective; you surely get
something out of certain artists that I don't. To me, most avant garde
jazz, and late-period Coltrane in particular, is about as subtle as a
train wreck.
Guy Berger
> Let's not forget that there are basically two definitions of 'ambient' :
> Eno's concept of music that can be ignored, and (usually electronic) music
> with no beat. I think the latter classification has been more prevalent
> since "ambient" was co-opted by techno and artists like Aphex Twin made
> "ambient" records that are far from background music. This type of ambient
> goes back at least to the early 70s.
Go back further, to Pink Floyd and Terry Riley. I'm sure there's stuff
in 20th century "classical" music that precedes this as well.
> But I think jazz, especially early fusion, laid the foundation for both
> types of ambient even before Eno or any German bands experimented with it.
> On the one hand, insofar as background ambient developed into New Age and
> music designed to be 'soothing,' early Return to Forever tracks like
> "Crystal Silence" would appeal to people seeking a soothing experience. And
> those sort of tracks may be a more streamlined version of ideas originally
> debuted on "In a Silent Way." On the other hand, the whole genre of tense,
> unsettling soundscapes was presaged by Miles Davis' stuff like "Little
> Church," which is very dark and hard to classify and has no drums or
> percussion.
I think you nailed it right here -- Miles was a big innovator in this
style of music. Bill Laswell's Panthalassa remixes made these links
explicit (even if the original versions are generally better). Didn't
Eno say that he was influenced by "He Loved Him Madly"?
Guy
JC Martin
You don't seem to know a lot about avant garde music based on how you
responded Nick. Parker is a genius and well known within the avant garde
community. Eno fans tends to favor avant garde and its nuances over smooth
jazz and its inherent fakeness.
-JC
JC Martin
You don't have enough understanding or knowledge of Eno or his fan-base to
disagree however Nick. Come on man! This is simple. Just do your
homework.
I'm done.
-JC
JC Martin
news:544b2430.0308...@posting.google.com...
One should always attempt to work hard at *getting* it, if one is interested
in understanding more about life and the human condition. A great life
doesn't come easy. Neither does great art.
-JC
Warren Senders
>with our predilection for the use of quarter time. (3/4 or 4/4 or 5/4)
>Of course, it's obvious that our decimal system of numbers is related to
>10
>fingers (not 4 and a thumb plus four and a thumb), but I'm not so sure that
>morphology has much to do with time signature denominators.
>
>But hey, it's only my opinion based on no study of the subject.
I would agree that morphology is related much more subtly than
my rather hamfisted proposal would suggest. I *do* think that
our binarily symmetrical bodies have lent weight to our focus on
binary subdivisions -- walking rhythm and all that. The heartbeat
may have lent itself to ternaries...but the only way to find out, I
imagine, would be to locate some radially symmetrical organisms
and find out what sorts of music they make.
...love that *starfish* groove ("listen, kid, forget all that Tony
Williams crap and just give me a simple backbeat on 2 and 5!" --
punchline to an old drummer joke).
WS
sum1
>
> You don't have enough understanding or knowledge of Eno or his fan-base to
> disagree however Nick. Come on man! This is simple. Just do your
> homework.
Oh, man, but you reek of condescension.
> I'm done.
Thank god.
sum1
>
> One should always attempt to work hard at *getting* it, if one is interested
> in understanding more about life and the human condition. A great life
> doesn't come easy. Neither does great art.
>
> -JC
And then there are those whose greatest diffuclty in life is
maintaining the pretense that their life is somehow a struggle.
Toni Lassila
<eise...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Our ten fingers (five on each hand) would seem to have very little to do
>with our predilection for the use of quarter time. (3/4 or 4/4 or 5/4)
>Of course, it's obvious that our decimal system of numbers is related to 10
>fingers (not 4 and a thumb plus four and a thumb), but I'm not so sure that
>morphology has much to do with time signature denominators.
I'd think having two hands would have something to do with it, since
that leads to a natural 2/2 time.
Nick
> > > Um, what does this have to do with Coltrane, again??
> >
> > One poster listed certain prog rock/ambient artists (Eno among them)
> > and stated that if you liked that kind of stuff, you might be
> > receptive to Coltrane's late-period avant garde music. I disagreed.
>
>
> You don't have enough understanding or knowledge of Eno or his fan-base to
> disagree however Nick. Come on man! This is simple. Just do your
> homework.
Well, then, enlighten me. Tell me in concrete musical or aural terms
how Eno has such a strong connection to avant garde jazz.
JC Martin
No need to do that. I'm not interested in getting into a musical analysis,
especially since you haven't listened to much of the music we're discussing.
But if you want to subscribe to an Eno list or hit the prog newsgroup and
ask what an Eno fan is more inclined to listen to, I guarantee the answer
will jibe more with my reality than yours.
-JC
mazzolata
We feel for you - we understand how difficult it must be for you in your
lifelong campaign to convince the world that nothing is something.
Nick
Others have beat me to it. I did a Google Search for "Eno" and "jazz,"
and found at least one thread that asks the question "what kind of
jazz are you Eno fans listening to?" A few listeners seem to be
interested in mainstream jazz. I didn't find anyone who claimed to be
an Eno fan and also interested in avant garde jazz.
I never claimed to have special knowledge of what jazz, if any, Eno
fans are listening to. My original comment was that they might find a
stronger connection to smooth than avant garde, particularly if they
are interested in the relaxing, background aspect of the music.
Myth
"Nick" <nick...@aol.com> skrev i en meddelelse
This sho' ain't scientifical. I'll give you my personal experience with this
particular point. I was part of the very late 70's art/punk-scene, and Eno
was an icon in that
milieu. I got into this No Wave band, sorta Sex Pistols meets Miles Davis.
The jazz that was part of what inspired us, was from guys like James Blood
Ulmer, Ornette Coleman, James White and the Blacks, Defunkt (jazz ?) ect
ect, AND the "Far Side of John Coletrane". And Zed, yes, we were runin'
around the streets commiting anti-social acts. A lot :-)
Take care,
Tom
Bill
"Toni Lassila" <to...@nukespam.org> wrote
>
> "Bill" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >My philosophy on approaching music is that there's an attractive
> >melody.
>
> I presume this includes improvised melodies, otherwise we wouldn't be
> discussing jazz. Attractive is highly subjective, so no one but you
> can really say what that means.
Improvised melodies are fine. And yes when I say "attractive" I am
referring to my ears only.
> >In addition, there should be another instrument doing something in
> >relation to the thing playing the attractive melody such that the total
is
> >greater than the sum of the parts.
>
> Musical interplay, now there's a requirement something that makes more
> sense. I don't care much for solo albums either.
>
> >A great example of this is Miles' Bitches Brew
>
> Except that I wonder what you're concept of an "attractive melody" is,
> since this isn't a very "melodic" album by any stretch of imagination.
I agree BB is a unique album that doesn't really have any instrument leading
the sound. But it illustrates the notion nicely of how multiple sounds can
add up to something greater than the sum of the parts.
>
> >Coltrane's A Love Supreme on the other hand is basically a guy soloing by
> >himself (relative to what I wrote above) such that the total equals the
sum
> >of 1 (Coltrane). I'm ignoring a low volume piano because that don't
provide
> >an adequate interaction to my taste (too much in the background).
>
> You must have a different version from mine. Coltrane had possibly two
> of the best sidemen of the time (at least for him), McCoy Tyner and
> Elvin Jones, who were known for always being on the same wavelength
> with Trane. I don't find Tyner's piano on, say, Resolution to be at
> all "low volume" and think his excellent 2:06 long piano solo adds a
> lot more to this recording than just Trane playing his sheets of
> sound. And Jones is *always* there, working magic in the background.
I don't own A Love Supreme but had borrowed it from a friend to see if I
wanted to buy it. My recollection from listening to it was I didn't sense
much interaction between Coltrane and Tyner. I am not referring to drums
when talking about interaction though I don't really remember much of a
Coltrane-drums interaction but I concede I could be very wrong on this. I'd
have to listen to it again.
I did listen to Vilia from Coltrane - Live at Birdland last night and
thought there was a lot more interaction between the piano, drums, and
Coltrane than I ever remember on A Love Supreme. That's a great track btw.
Coltrane plays it pretty straight (doesn't get all chaotic and "noisy")
which is why I really liked his playing on it.
> >I haven't listened to any Charlie Parker other than little snippets of it
on
> >the radio. But if CP's CDs are basically him soloing with little
> >interaction with the other instruments, I think I would get bored
relatively
> >quickly.
>
> There's a CD release called "Bird And Diz" that has him in 1950 with
> Dizzy, Monk and Buddy Rich. Among other things, they play "Leap Frog"
> which is just Bird and Diz playing twos for the entire tune. Check it
> out.
Thanks for the recommendation. What do you mean by "playing twos"? I play
a little music (guitar) and know some theory but haven't heard that phrase.
> I think Bird played in enough jams to know how to interplay with a
> whole bunch of different musicians. If some of his studio producers
> picked invisible sidemen to bring Bird's playing to the foreground,
> that was hardly his fault now was it?
But I do think it's the responsibility of a musician to strive for a sound
where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts rather than be consumed
by ego and be the only thing heard. It just basically makes for better
music and a musician should be interested first in making the music as good
as possible rather than showing him/herself off.
> >Miles only works for me when there's a lot of interaction between the
> >instruments. I could never take Miles if it was played in the fashion of
> >Coltrane like he is on A Love Supreme.
>
> I think a lot of early Miles is just Miles with his trumpet with the
> other musicians pushed in the background (a notable exception is the
> work with Gil Evans). Like the famous brouhaha with him telling Monk
> to lay off during his solo because he didn't like the chords Monk was
> playing.
I haven't heard any early Miles except for Kind of Blue. My favorite Miles
is the Bitches Brew period because of all that is happening (and working)
simultaneously.
> >I like Eric Dolphy's Out To Lunch because of the interesting interplay
> >between the instruments. It's also why I am finding myself more and more
> >attracted to some classical music.
>
> If you like Dolphy and Ellington, you'll love Mingus. Seriously.
Thanks for the suggestion. What Mingus is excellent and in the style I've
been describing I like (the whole greater than the sum of the parts)?
Thanks.
>
> >And I do agree that what one gets out of something is at least partially
> >related to what one puts into it. But giving something your undivided
> >attention doesn't guarantee you'll get off on it as I have found with a
lot
> >of Coltrane.
>
> Listening to a late-Coltrane album twenty times in a row is unlikely
> to give you anything except possibly a headache, but listening to
> various other artists recordings from around the same period and later
> works influenced by Coltrane might help you later find something in
> those albums that you didn't think was there before.
>
> Or then it might not.
Speaking (again) of Coltrane, which release has the greatest version (in the
replyer's opinion) of My Favorite Things. I bought the studio version and
didn't dig it all that much but then one time I heard a live version on the
radio that blew away (IMO) the studio version but I never paid attention to
the dj when he said where it was from. I'm not necessarily looking for the
longest version. Thanks.
Bill
Bill
"Guy Berger" wrote
I'll take your word for it. I was thinking more of instruments other than
the drum. I didn't get much sense of Coltrane and Tyler interacting in a
musical way (where each's playing is complementing the other) in A Love
Supreme. As I said in another post, I got much more of that sense in Vilia
from Live at Birdland when I listened to it last night.
Bill