any recommendation's on old jazz greats?
Matt
I am looking to this newsgroup for some recommendations on OLD jazz
artists to listen to. I do not know anyone who is a big enough fan of
jazz to ask. I am a musician (guitar/bass/drum) 25 years young. I
occasionally hear some jazz cd's here at work and really enjoy them. We
have a Louis Jordan "5 guys named Moe", Miles Davis "borgie and bess?"
and some others. I would like to hear more along those lines. I
really enjoy piano and drums in jazz music too. I do not want to just
go to the store
and spend $$ on cd's without knowing a little about what I'm buying.
I love the blues, and if someone asked me to get them into it, I could
pick like 10 amazing old records that be a great start for someone who
wants to learn the basics/classics. That's kinda what I'm looking for
here. Any suggestions/thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
I was watching some CSPAN Jazz appreciation thing at the Whitehouse a
few
days ago that was pretty interesting. It had all these contemporary
musicians
talking about how jazz from the 30's and 40's has had an effect on
society and
civil rights and such... it was pretty interesting and they played some
great stuff.
I wish I could remember some of the names I heard. It's too bad Hilary
can't
nodd her head to the tempo...she looked pretty goofy.
I also saw a "Jazz for Dummies" book at the store. Is that a silly way
to learn about
jazz? I don't want to be "THAT GUY" if you know what I mean?
Thanks!
Matt
Howard Peirce
First of all, congratulations and welcome! You are about to embark on a
strange and wonderful journey.... Seriously, as anybody here can attest,
once you realize how vast and varied jazz is, how much great music there is
to be heard, you'll be hooked for life.
I haven't read "Jazz for Dummies," but I'm familiar with the Dummies books,
and they're better books than you'd expect from the series title. It can't
hurt. I can also recommend "The Beginner's Guide to Jazz" as a nice
introduction. It's in a kind of comic-book format, but very smart and
well-written. There's a book called "Listening to Jazz," ( I believe) that
I would recommend against, as it's very analytical, and makes enjoying jazz
sound way more tedious and intellectual than it needs to be.
One thing you'll learn is that jazz has been around a long, long time, and
"old" is a relative term. (When I saw your request for OLD jazz, I thought
you meant pre-1930.) An album like Miles's Porgy and Bess, while a genuine
classic, is still considered "modern," relatively speaking.
I'll give you the standard recommendation for purchase: Miles Davis, "Kind
of Blue." You can't go wrong there. Another good way to go is to go to your
library and check out everything they've got, from the '20s to today. That
way, you can hear a great variety of jazz and figure out what interests
you. See if the library has The Smithsonian Collection of Classic Jazz for
a nice overview (but don't buy it; find what you like it on the anthology,
and then purchase the original recordings).
A couple of good books will give you an idea of who the acknowledged
masters and important records are, and I'm sure other r.m.b.'ers will post
their personal lists. Louis Jordan and Miles Davis are miles apart on the
jazz spectrum, so you've clearly got some big ears and probably need to
experience a lot of different jazz styles before focusing, for example, on
classic 50s and 60s Blue Note albums.
Finally, if you can, get to the city and go to some clubs to hear live
jazz. It won't be old, but that's not the point. The point is to get the
feel of live jazz in an intimate setting, to watch the musicians at work,
and dig the scene. Take that vibe with you when you listen to recordings.
After you've done some research (sounds like work, doesn't it), post back
here and let us know what you're listening to and what you think of it.
PS: As a musician, once you get your ears full of jazz, it's only a matter
of time before you're gonna wonder how it works, and want to start playing
it. Bwa-ha-ha! Another soul for jazz.....
HP
Glenn
For piano Oscar Peterson's: Night Train
Miles Davis trumpet: Kind of Blue
get the "All Music Guide To Jazz" volume #3, I think they have a web site
too.
Have fun, Glenn
Michel Forest
>
> Howard Peirce wrote:
> >Louis Jordan and Miles Davis are miles apart on the<BR>
> >jazz spectrum, so you've clearly got some big ears and probably need to<BR>
> >experience a lot of different jazz styles before focusing, for example,
> >classic 50s and 60s Blue Note albums.<BR>
> ---
> A lot of the responses to newbie requests for recommendations tend to suggest
> something akin to a college course on jazz music appreciation. There's nothing
> wrong with that but I really wonder how many actually got into jazz that way.
> I heard something I liked, started listening to more of it, branched out to
> other musicians who happened to be on the albums I had and before you know it I
> was listening to everything from Hot Fives and Sevens to fusion.
> So here's a different approach. Explore Miles Davis a bit. He will lead you
> to almost everybody from the fifties on up and backward to Parker and beyond.
Good idea. That's pretty much what I did: started with Coltrane's "Live
at the Village Vanguard" and some Atlantic 2 lp compilation, through
Trane discovered Miles ("Round About Midnight" was the lp) and through
Miles, discovered just about anybody, except free jazz. But that was a
blessing in disguise because I was not ready for free jazz yet, it took
me a couple of years before I could get into that. The third Coltrane lp
I borrowed from my public library was "Live in Seattle"... I stopped the
turntable after 3 minutes!! Ironically, this is one of my favorite
Coltrane albums now!
ENIGVAR6
>Louis Jordan and Miles Davis are miles apart on the<BR>
>jazz spectrum, so you've clearly got some big ears and probably need to<BR>
>experience a lot of different jazz styles before focusing, for example,
>on<BR>
>classic 50s and 60s Blue Note albums.<BR>
---
A lot of the responses to newbie requests for recommendations tend to suggest
something akin to a college course on jazz music appreciation. There's nothing
wrong with that but I really wonder how many actually got into jazz that way.
I heard something I liked, started listening to more of it, branched out to
other musicians who happened to be on the albums I had and before you know it I
was listening to everything from Hot Fives and Sevens to fusion.
So here's a different approach. Explore Miles Davis a bit. He will lead you
to almost everybody from the fifties on up and backward to Parker and beyond.
Jerry Karin
Matt Urban
Well You Needn't), Dave Brubeck (for Blue Rondo a la Turk) and Miles
Davis (cause, well, he's Miles Davis). Next, I picked up a Charles
Mingus album (Let My Children Hear Music) because I thought his last
name sounded cool and I'd seen a picture of him that looked cool.
Now, I've got a sizable collection that spans from Louis Armstrong
to...well, I gotta be honest, I'm having trouble getting past the
early seventies.
My point being, I agree with Jerry. Start with something you like,
keep your ears open, read the liner notes, and soon you'll discover
more than you have time to listen to.
Matt
Ulf Åbjörnsson
Ulf
Glenn <1@2.3> skrev i meddelandet <76uhma$9a6$1...@remarQ.com>...
Pablo
> My recomendations are
Art Blackey and the Jazz Messengers: Moanin'
Miles Davis: Milestones
Charles Mingus: A Hum
Bill Evans: Portrait of Jazz (with LaFaro and Motian)
The jazz club serie of Verve Lavel have a good compilation about jazz
instruments: Alto sax, tenor sax, bass, piano, trumpet, trombon, drums.
I have alto sax, piano and bass they are excelents compilations very good
election of musicians and tunes.
regards
Pablo
Valparaíso, Chile
--
Si el que dice ser tu mejor amigo te clava un puñal por la espalda. Debes
desconfiar de su amistad.
Les Luthiers.
Matt
questions are a pain. I fucking hate that word too. Thanks again!!!
Matt
Richard A Walker
mere way of life but life itself. There was a time when jazzmen had not
yet begun to yearn for a house in Malibu nor boast of imaginary
conversations with Sartre.
You seem to ask for classic jazz. So I would suggest you begin with some
of the Sacred Monsters:
1) Armstrong, Columbia/Sony, Louis Armstrong and Earl Hines (Vol 4 in
the classic Armstrong series.
2) Bix Beiderbecke, Columbia/Sony, Singin' the Blues (Vol. 1 in the Bix
series.
3) Jack Teagarden, Classics 729, Jack Teagarden: 1934-1939
4) Billie Holiday, Columbia/Sony, The Quintessential Billie Holiday,
vol. 3 (1936-1937)
5) Bunny Berigan, Classics 734, Bunny Berigan and His Boys: 1935-1936.
You'll hear virtually every great soloist of the Golden Age of jazz in
those discs.
Good luck.
Rich Walker
Tampa
Jim
glad I took that class because it changed my life and I really don't
think I would have taken the time to listen to that many recordings,
spanning the 1910s to late 1980s, if I didn't feel the pressure of the
class. Because of the class I could say with confidence that I liked
what was going on between 1955 and 1965 best. It's taken me several
years to really get into it, because jazz was always my "second" music.
But now, for the time being, it's first, and I'm loving exploring it.
Jim Curran
Chicago
Very new to this list
ENIGVAR6
>Well Jerry, I am among those who did get into jazz that way. I am so<BR>
>glad I took that class because it changed my life and I really don't<BR>
>think I would have taken the time to listen to that many recordings,<BR>
(snip)
---
I guess I should qualify my remarks a bit. Actually I think the "research"
phase of jazz listening is something every serious listener and player
eventually gets to, and I can't deny that I've been doing it myself! In the
context of recommendations for someone new to jazz, I do wonder how well this
works (outside of an actual class). Most of us grew up on rock and roll, so
maybe it will be easier to see the point in that context. Suppose someone, a
foreigner for example, says they heard a Hendrix album and really liked it and
what would you recommend they listen to next? Of course you would answer: oh
yeah go to the library and check out all the different periods of rock, be sure
to listen to these early rockers, make a systematic survey of all periods and
don't get deep into Hendrix right off... NOT!
----Jerry Karin
Jim Curran
No need to overintellectualize it, I guess, but jazz is a little less
approachable than rock. I'd venture to say that for most people, it's an
acquired taste. Maybe the point is that it's more rewarding to listen to
jazz when you understand where it came from?
Jim
ENIGVAR6 wrote:
>
>Suppose someone, a
> foreigner for example, says they heard a Hendrix album and really liked it and
> what would you recommend they listen to next? Of course you would answer: oh
> yeah go to the library and check out all the different periods of rock, be sure
> to listen to these early rockers, make a systematic survey of all periods and
> don't get deep into Hendrix right off... NOT!
--
Jim Curran - jcu...@mindspring.com - http://www.mindspring.com/~jcurran
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I like music where there lies a conception of the world so romantic
and humanistic that anyone who has a heart can feel it melting."
-Simon Hammarström
Howard Peirce
> Suppose someone, a
> foreigner for example, says they heard a Hendrix album and really liked it and
> what would you recommend they listen to next? Of course you would answer: oh
> yeah go to the library and check out all the different periods of rock, be sure
> to listen to these early rockers, make a systematic survey of all periods and
> don't get deep into Hendrix right off... NOT!
The only reason I mentioned the library trip is because the guy was listening to
Louis Jordan and Miles Davis, who are worlds apart musically. I mean, what do you
say? "If you like Jordan and Davis, then you'd probably like Slim Galliard and
John Coltrane." How meaningful is that? There's not enough information there to
point the guy in a single direction. The point of going to the library is not to
do systematic research, but to hear a bunch of different stuff on the cheap so you
can figure out what you like, and then start collecting.
-------
PEEVE, RANT, and TANGENT: Why do people who grew up on rock and roll always assume
that *everybody* grew up on rock and roll? I grew up in the 70s, but I was raised
on TV show themes and cartoon music, then went straight into jazz. Granted, I was
surrounded by rock and roll, but I paid no attention to it and always found it
boring. I once had someone tell me with a straight face and absolute confidence
that "everybody owns Pink Floyd's 'The Wall.'" It's like that Todd Rundgren quote
posted here recently. Rock and roll seems to depend on the myth of its own
universality, as if somehow it wouldn't be as good if not everyone liked it. And
you can't even admit in public that you've never listened to rock and roll without
being accused of snobbery or self-rightousness or dishonesty.
Sorry for the interruption,
HP
Marc Sabatella
>I guess I should qualify my remarks a bit. Actually I think the "research"
>phase of jazz listening is something every serious listener and player
>eventually gets to, and I can't deny that I've been doing it myself! In the
>context of recommendations for someone new to jazz, I do wonder how well this
>works (outside of an actual class). Most of us grew up on rock and roll, so
>maybe it will be easier to see the point in that context. Suppose someone, a
>foreigner for example, says they heard a Hendrix album and really liked it and
>what would you recommend they listen to next? Of course you would answer: oh
>yeah go to the library and check out all the different periods of rock, be sure
>to listen to these early rockers, make a systematic survey of all periods and
>don't get deep into Hendrix right off... NOT!
This makes sense when you *know* what the person already likes, and can
simply recommend more of the same. But if he says he doesn't know
anything, or says he's heard two jazz albums he likes so far, one from
Louis Armstrong and one from John Coltrane, what are you to do? The
advantage of the historical approach is to give them an overview right
away, so they know where to focus their attention, since we don't know
how to focus it for them.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Second Course"
Available on Cadence Jazz Records
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
D Royko
In article <36950E4C...@sdrc.com>, Howard Peirce <howard...@sdrc.com>
writes:
>I once had someone tell me with a straight face and absolute confidence
>that "everybody owns Pink Floyd's 'The Wall.'"
And he's wrong. It's Pnk Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" that everybody owns.
Even you, Howard. If you deny it, we'll send somebody to plant one on your
property before the rock police search warant is exercised. Resistance is
futile.
Dave Royko
Howard Peirce
> And he's wrong. It's Pnk Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" that everybody owns.
> Even you, Howard. If you deny it, we'll send somebody to plant one on your
> property before the rock police search warant is exercised. Resistance is
> futile.
I believe you're right. It was Dark Side of the Moon he was talking about. I
happily plead ignorance. I only know The Wall because of the guy down the hall
from me in college who played it over and over and over again. And no matter how
loud you turn up Miles Davis at Carnegie Hall, those shimmering open textures will
never completely drown out studio-produced pomposity.
The closest thing I have to Pink Floyd is a tape dub of Adrian Belew someone gave
me as a gift. Not very close, I'm afraid.
HP
Glenn
Ulf Åbjörnsson wrote in message <76vksl$4ic$1...@cubacola.tninet.se>...
>OLD ?!?!?!?
Yeah, sorry to offend ya :)
ENIGVAR6
>he only reason I mentioned the library trip is because the guy was listening
>Louis Jordan and Miles Davis, who are worlds apart musically. I mean, what do
>say? "
(snip)
>The point of going to the library is not to<BR>
>do systematic research, but to hear a bunch of different stuff on the cheap
>can figure out what you like, and then start collecting.<BR>
----
I agree with you completely about the library being a good place to get
exposure to a variety of periods and styles. Finding a good jazz radio station
is another way (in Seattle it's KPLU 88.5 - dig it!). I guess my point here is
that we are all concerned that this great art form is largely ignored by the
very country that spawned it. With so many marvelous masters of it still
living, NPR picks Diana Krall to play on New Year's Eve (she reeked that night,
though I usually like her; the point is why didn't they get McCoy Tyner or many
others?). The thing that I wonder about is if a newcomer asks for
recommendations and we come across all academic, historical, even
archaeological sounding, are we helping this situation? I think we tend to
propose to the newcomer the method which we have come to after years of being
in it. It's like offering a five-course french meal to an infant.
---Jerry Karin
Ulf Åbjörnsson
Now we are getting way out of what this list is supposed to be. What do
these guys have to do with "old jazz greats" or with "jazz" or with this
list?
Ulf
D Royko skrev i meddelandet
<19990107170415...@ngol06.aol.com>...
>
>In article <36950E4C...@sdrc.com>, Howard Peirce
<howard...@sdrc.com>
>writes:
>>I once had someone tell me with a straight face and absolute confidence
>>that "everybody owns Pink Floyd's 'The Wall.'"
>
>And he's wrong. It's Pnk Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" that everybody
owns.
>Even you, Howard. If you deny it, we'll send somebody to plant one on your
>property before the rock police search warant is exercised. Resistance is
>futile.
>
>Dave Royko
Ulf Åbjörnsson
Ulf
Glenn <1@2.3> skrev i meddelandet <773u2h$ops$1...@remarQ.com>...
Richard Clemance
> Rock and roll seems to depend on the myth of its own
>universality, as if somehow it wouldn't be as good if not everyone liked it.
It is a "social" music so its social function CAN be very important.
But of course there are some types of "art" rock.
Also "rock and roll" is a type of rock. There are many types, just as
there as many types of jazz.
>And
>you can't even admit in public that you've never listened to rock and roll without
>being accused of snobbery or self-rightousness or dishonesty.
It depends what you mean by listen. To some people it might seem that
you are saying you have never HEARD any rock and roll.
Wouldn't it be better to say something like " I have heard some but am
more interested in jazz".
tst...@businessobjects.com
Howard Peirce <howard...@sdrc.com> wrote:
> [SNIP]
> PEEVE, RANT, and TANGENT: Why do people who grew up on rock and roll always
assume
> that *everybody* grew up on rock and roll? I grew up in the 70s, but I was
raised
> on TV show themes and cartoon music, then went straight into jazz. Granted, I
was
> surrounded by rock and roll, but I paid no attention to it and always found it
confidence
> that "everybody owns Pink Floyd's 'The Wall.'" It's like that Todd Rundgren
quote
> universality, as if somehow it wouldn't be as good if not everyone liked it.
> you can't even admit in public that you've never listened to rock and roll
without
> being accused of snobbery or self-rightousness or dishonesty.
Hear, hear. I grew up with rock and roll in the mix, but not too much. I liked
blues-based guitar heroes such as Hendrix, Clapton and Allman, but mainly
gravitated to blues, soul and funk before discovering jazz. My classmates were
going nuts over Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Talking Heads, Peter Frampton, Patti
Smith... I wouldn't say it all sucked, but it didn't interest me. I never even
bought David Bowie or Lou Reed albums. Not that I'm proud of it, there's
nothing wrong with rock. But like you, I hate the way it's assumed to be part
of everyone's youth.
- Tom Storer
"When you're swinging, swing some more." - Thelonious Monk
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
gerry dupuis
gerry dupuis
discovered blues & jazz....
Howard Peirce
> Jimi Hendrix... Pink Floyd....
>
> Now we are getting way out of what this list is supposed to be. What do
> these guys have to do with "old jazz greats" or with "jazz" or with this
> list?
Well, I had clearly marked my previous ramblings as a rant and pet peeve, and
I'll amend the subject line. Dave was having some fun with me, and that's how
we got off track. There's a consistent presumption that newbies to jazz come
from a rock background; that rock is ubiquitous; and that its appeal is
universal. Since I grew up in the 70s without ever once considering myself a
rock fan or listener, I wonder how accurate that perception is; and should
recommendations to new listeners always presume some kind of smooth transition
from rock?
I was also kind of looking for some confirmation that I'm not the only
listener of my generation or younger who does not come from a rock background.
So let me put the question straight:
How many of you jazz fans and musicians under 40 were never involved with rock
music, and what did you play/listen to before discovering jazz?
HP
Matt
simple request. I admitted from the start I know nothing about jazz.
Many people have politeley responded and have given me many
suggestions....I really appreciate it! I never thought to go to the
library and sample things on my own. I was just kind of looking for a
little direction on which direction to go in ...given what I have heard
and liked. Miles and Jordan may be worlds apart to you all but from
where I stand they are similar. Since my original post I have picked up
these and have really enjoyed them:
Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong - Jazz master's 24 on Verve
Etta James - At Last on MCA
Billie Holiday - Billie's Best on Verve
Louis Jordan - 5 guys named Moe
I think next I'll probably listen to some Miles Davis...but from what
period I'm not sure yet.
thanks all.
matt
Matt
jazz. I am a musician who hasn't had the luxury of being exposed to
jazz....ever really. I am developing an interest in jazz on my own
based on what little I've heard. I love live music ...it moves
me....and that is why I am trying to pick the people's brains here at
the discussion. I have this suspicion there is an entire universe of
music out there I would absolutely love and I'm trying to find it.
matt
Howard Peirce
> Former? Hell I'm still a rocker. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate
> jazz. I am a musician who hasn't had the luxury of being exposed to
> jazz....ever really.
Aaaaargh! Sorry I brought this up. All I can say is, "Of course not!" It's
like the old saying, everybody's gotta be from somewhere.
1) We got off on a tangent that's unrelated to your initial request.
Happens all the time in usenet.
2) There's nothing wrong with rock! I've just never been a part of that
scene, but when I say that, people get all defensive about rock. Then I
have to get defensive and say "not that there's anything wrong with it."
And we get into this depressing spiral leaving bad feelings all around.
I think things are changing, though. Most of the folks under 25 I know are
both open to more kinds of music, and less likely to judge folks who don't
share their taste. It's people my age who get all nutty when I say I've
never listened to rock.
> I am developing an interest in jazz on my own
> based on what little I've heard.
I certainly didn't grow up around jazz music, or much music of any kind.
There's always some kind of trigger. I grew up in a house where the TV was
always on, and I wound up paying more attention to the background music
than the stories. That, and sitting in jr. high school band, I was
convinced that there had to be a better use for a trumpet than concert
band music.
> I love live music ...it moves
> me....and that is why I am trying to pick the people's brains here at
> the discussion. I have this suspicion there is an entire universe of
> music out there I would absolutely love and I'm trying to find it.
I can almost guarantee that. The thing about jazz is, within this
relatively small musical subculture, there's this incredibly huge and
varied body of music.
HP
Marc Sabatella
>How many of you jazz fans and musicians under 40 were never involved with rock
>music, and what did you play/listen to before discovering jazz?
I'm (almost) 34, and I grew up listening to either classical music or
the news / "easy listening" radio station (Barry Manilow, John Denver,
Neil Diamond), plus the folk group at our church. I got into jazz in
high school (with a little taste in junior high) through the other
musicians I knew in band. Some time after that I heard my first Beatles
song. Thought it was pretty cool, for what it's worth. But add me to
the list of 30-somethings who have never owned a Pink Floyd album, and
who have no idea who Todd Rundgren is.
Matt
>Aaaaargh! Sorry I brought this up
I don't mean to sound defensive. I understand what you're getting at.
>I think things are changing, though. Most of the folks under 25 I know
are
both open to more kinds of music, and less likely to judge folks who
don't
share their taste. It's people my age who get all nutty when I say
I've
never listened to rock.
True. I feel really out of place in this group right now.
I've always been partial to Floyd's ANIMALS opposed to DARK SIDE...but
you're all right....I think that album was issued to every household out
there 20 some years ago.
:-)
matt
Mike Zimbouski
<howard...@sdrc.com> wrote:
> How many of you jazz fans and musicians under 40 were never involved with rock
> music, and what did you play/listen to before discovering jazz?
I think you might get a few responses to this, Howard.
For myself, I would have a hard time saying that I was never a rock fan
with a straight face; I purchased my first rock album in 1977 at the age
of five. It was KISS's _Double Platinum_, and I was off. Tried to play
"Hotter than Hell" for my kindergarten class at Show and Tell, and was at
a loss to understand the teacher's indignation. From there I went through
the requisite 80s' metal phase, in high school got interested in classic
rock, found out about Robert Johnson from the Led Zeppelin biography
_Hammer of the Gods_. I bought my first jazz album, the inevitable _Kind
of Blue, when I was 16. From there I bought records by Charlie Parker,
Coltrane, Mingus, etc., all people I had read were the "important" jazz
musicians. Some of them I enjoyed well enough, but I never really felt
like I quite "got" it. I was particularly baffled when I got to Armstrong
and Ellington; what _was_ this old shit? I was puzzled by things like Max
Roach's drumming style as well; where the hell was the backbeat? I can
vividly remember playing Miles' _Sorcerer_ over and over again, trying to
figure out what I was supposed to be listening to, but always it would be
just a forty-minute blur of notes, finally broken by that annoying singer
guy announcing that I had once again missed the point of the record.
Then Nirvana and Pearl Jam hit, and I forgot about all other music for a
good year and a half. Gimme a break, I was 17, and living in Connecticut,
for godsakes. I got to college and discovered the early-nineties
"indie-rock" scene, which started to turn me on to more dissonate--and
occasionally more musically intricate--stuff like Fugazi, Pavement,
Sebadoh, Trumans Water, etc., all of which remain some of my favorites to
this day. But there was something else I was searching for. I wanted to
hear music that was more full-on, more intense, certainly more
unpredictable. It wasn't until I transferred to Boston that I discovered
the twin towers of free jazz and noise music, which really delivered the
senses of otherworldliness and pure energy that I was looking for. And
from there I was able to follow the roots of Ayler and Taylor back to
their sources, discovering the joys of Bud Powell, Coleman Hawkins, all
the way to Jelly Roll Morton. Recently I took a job at the jazz department
of a record store, and have been amazed at how many more levels there are
still to plumb in all areas of the music. I still feel like my education
is just beginning.
Next?
Mike Z
Ulf Åbjörnsson
Ulf
gerry dupuis skrev i meddelandet <369616B2...@istar.ca>...
Ulf Åbjörnsson
won the Rock Band Championship of Malmoe, Sweden, in 1958. And I am 58 now.
I see it as a "youthful sin" to be excused by curiousity and bad knowledge.
;-)
I promise, it has been many years since I actively listened to - or played -
rock!
Ulf
Howard Peirce skrev i meddelandet <36962E37...@sdrc.com>...
Howard Peirce
> I got into jazz in
> high school (with a little taste in junior high) through the other
> musicians I knew in band.
Yes! Jr. high and high school band! That was the big support system. I had a really hip
teacher who gave me some great advice on who to listen to, and there was a group of us
who loved to play, but thought that HS band music wasn't too hip; so it was like a way to
find things to do with instruments you blow into that we could feel good about.
I was talking to some twenty-something kids who've been coming to Wednesday gig (old guys
playing standards) pretty regularly. The really didn't look like the typical jazz
demographic--turned out they were all former band geeks. Sigh...some things never change.
HP
Heath Watts
>
> Ulf Åbjörnsson wrote:
>
> > Jimi Hendrix... Pink Floyd....
> >
> > Now we are getting way out of what this list is supposed to be. What do
> > these guys have to do with "old jazz greats" or with "jazz" or with this
> > list?
>
> Well, I had clearly marked my previous ramblings as a rant and pet peeve, and
> I'll amend the subject line. Dave was having some fun with me, and that's how
> we got off track. There's a consistent presumption that newbies to jazz come
> from a rock background; that rock is ubiquitous; and that its appeal is
> universal. Since I grew up in the 70s without ever once considering myself a
> rock fan or listener, I wonder how accurate that perception is; and should
> recommendations to new listeners always presume some kind of smooth transition
> from rock?
>
> I was also kind of looking for some confirmation that I'm not the only
> listener of my generation or younger who does not come from a rock background.
> So let me put the question straight:
>
> music, and what did you play/listen to before discovering jazz?
>
I came from a rock background. I listened to pop music until I was 19.
I then discovered the Beatles. The Beatles begat Led Zeppelin and Jimi
Hendrix. Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix led me to Bessie Smith, Robert
Johnson, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Son House, Gary Davis, Muddy Waters,
Howlin' Wolf, BB King, and others Blues artists. From the Blues artists
I discovered Coltrane when I was 23. I now have about 1200 CDs, 100 of
which are Blues the remainder are 1920s through 1960s Jazz. The only
rock music I still own is the Beatles collection on LP. Luckily, I
turned of the radio and found the Beatles or today I might be grooving
to Mariah Carry, the "smooth "jazz"" sounds of the Kenny G, or trying to
transcribe those "difficult" guitar licks from Bon Jovi CDs. It's been
a long and winding road that ended up at Jazz's door. Glad I made it.
For the sake of Jazz's future I hope more people born in the late 60's
or after will turn off the radio and find Jazz.
Heath
Neil
was in 7th, I can attest that he certainly paid no attention to rock music
growing up. I, like he was to busy checking out as much Jazz and Classical
music as we could find in our little town. I can also assure you that HP
does NOT own a copy of "Dark Side of the Moon" and neither do I.
sandy & karen jarrell
tst...@businessobjects.com wrote:
>
>
> "When you're rocking, stop that." - Thelonious Monk
>
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Damn. And here I was thinking that I could just go on listening to jazz AND the
rock music. Are hip hop and jazz mutually exclusive also?
Gotta run. I've got a shipload of discs and records to unload. (Then can I be in
your club?)
Sandy
PS I'm 35 and it was my dad that liked Pink Floyd. Never dabbled in the stuff
myself.
tst...@businessobjects.com
> How many of you jazz fans and musicians under 40 were never involved with rock
> music, and what did you play/listen to before discovering jazz?
As I said in my reply to your original rant and peeve, I can't say I was
*never* involved with rock music. I had an AM radio period at ages ten
through twelve, approximately - pop, soul, funk, rock, there was everything
as long as it was AM radio digestible. My main ambient listening, because it
was what people listened to in the neighborhood, was commercial soul, Motown
and funk. The first single I ever bought was Stevie Wonder's "If You Really
Love Me." I also remember buying James Brown's "Hot Pants," Marvin Gaye's
"What's Going On," "Shaft," the earliest Kool and the Gang records, and so
on. Through the influence of my older brother I got into guitar heroes such
as Jimi Hendrix, Duane Allman and Eric Clapton; I also began to listen to
blues, using the resources of my local public library. Very soon thereafter,
sometime before I turned 16, I guess, I started to listen to jazz.
What I liked in the music I listened to before I discovered jazz was the
lyrical and improvisatory nature of the vocals and/or instrumental solos; in
addition, they all had something approaching swing, less so with Hendrix and
Clapton, perhaps: that propelling, syncopated thing somewhere in the mix.
What I *didn't* like about other rock - Pink Floyd, David Bowie, the Rolling
Stones, the Beatles, etc. - was that the rhythms were boring; everything
seemed predictable, posed and fake; the lyrics were dumb; and above all it
seemed to have no edge to it, no spark. Now, I'm not putting down rock, all
you rock fans out there, just reporting on how I felt at the time.
- Tom Storer
"When you're rocking, stop that." - Thelonious Monk
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
tst...@businessobjects.com
ky...@star.net (Mike Zimbouski) wrote:
> [SNIP] Recently I took a job at the jazz department
> of a record store, and have been amazed at how many more levels there are
> still to plumb in all areas of the music. I still feel like my education
> is just beginning.
Three cheers for you. I suggest you start right in discovering goofy, flakey
white trumpeters of the 20's and 30's. ;-)
- Tom Storer
"When you're swinging, swing some more." - Thelonious Monk
tst...@businessobjects.com
mat...@mcelfish.com wrote:
> [SNIP]I am a musician who hasn't had the luxury of being exposed to
> jazz....ever really. I am developing an interest in jazz on my own
> based on what little I've heard.
That's where most of us start out! Not too many people get a hell of a lot of
"exposure" to jazz just like that. You have to ferret it out. Go for it!
Douglas Norwood
>where I stand they are similar.
That's great! As a neophyte, you haven't been brainwashed into the silly
categorization which has burdened some of us older heads. Keep thinking
that way.
Since my original post I have picked up
>these and have really enjoyed them:
>
>Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong - Jazz master's 24 on Verve
>Etta James - At Last on MCA
>Billie Holiday - Billie's Best on Verve
>Louis Jordan - 5 guys named Moe
Hard to argue with any of these.
-
DOUGLAS NORWOOD LNB...@prodigy.com
Paul Craig Sanwald
and blues, mostly the Ramones, the Sex Pistols, Muddy Waters, Robert
Johnson, Minor Threat, Dag Nasty, Bad Religion, the Descendents, All,
things like that. I got my first Jazz record when I was 15 (John Coltrane's
"Live at Birdland") and loved it straight off the bat. Even though I don't
listen to too much punk at home anymore, I still enjoy going to the shows
and stuff like that.
It's interesting to hear everybody's "roots".
--paul
Howard Peirce
Yeah, but Neil, you are the guy who introduced me to Prince and Curtis Blow
;-).
Actually, not to carry on private reminiscences in a public forum, but
remember how, whenever somebody wanted to play an album on the stereo in the
band room at school, Mr. Brugh would come out of his office and ask, "Has it
been approved by the commitee?" And then he'd look at what you were listening
to, and then he'd recommend something similar but just a little bit hipper.
And then we'd go back to the band room after lunch and do experimental free
improv until the choir director would come out and yell at us to quit banging
things on the strings of the piano.
I thought everybody did this sort of thing in high school. Now I realize how
blessed we were.
HP
Neil
Howard Peirce wrote in message <369A24FE...@sdrc.com>...
>
>Yeah, but Neil, you are the guy who introduced me to Prince and Curtis Blow
>;-).
Yeah, but.....I didn't discover stuff like that until a was in college!
(except for the little bit that Tom G. listened to.)
>
>Actually, not to carry on private reminiscences in a public forum, but
>remember how, whenever somebody wanted to play an album on the stereo in
the
>band room at school, Mr. Brugh would come out of his office and ask, "Has
it
>been approved by the commitee?" And then he'd look at what you were
listening
>to, and then he'd recommend something similar but just a little bit hipper.
Don't really remember that, just remember my freshman year, him putting up
alternate changes on the blackboard, and wondering how you could not play
the changes that were written!?!
>
N
Ian Ring
Baker. Here are a few I would recommend, with a definite slant towards
modernist jazz:
Charles Mingus - "Mingus Ah Um" - Columbia Jazz
The Dave Brubeck Quartet - "Time Out" - Columbia
John Coltrane - "Giant Steps" - Atlantic
Chet Baker - "My Funny Valentine" - Capitol/Bluenote
Miles Davis - "Birth Of the Cool" - Capitol Jazz
Vince Guaraldi Trio - "A Boy Named Charlie Brown" - Fantasy/BMG
This is not, in my opinion, a "top-10 list" (I don't want to start that
thread again) but it would be easy to argue that these *some* of the
greatest modern jazz recordings ever made, by the most influential artists,
and a great basis for a beginning interest in the idiom, and moreover they
will all be very easy to find released on Compact Disc.
Enjoy!
Ian Ring
Fathom
Nothing wrong with liking that, but the label is deceptive.
--
Respond by e-mail to aayoung"AT"sonic.net
8 8 8 8 8 8 8
It's hard to be humble when you were born knowing it all.
bruce higgins
}By "modern", you mean 1950's, obviously.
}Nothing wrong with liking that, but the label is deceptive.
Well, I'm no William Safire, but I'm fairly sure that "modern" is no
longer synomous with "contemporary". (I'm not sure that "contemporary" is
still synomous with "contemporary" for that matter) "Modern" has become
associated with a historical period starting sometime after WWII and
ending, errr...late 60's? early 70's. I never really understood
"post-modern", but I believe we are not only well into that period, but
may well be be heading into "post-post-modern" days...
So describing Mingus, Chet, Brubeck, etc, as "modern" is fairly accurate.
B___, ducking for cover...
--
bruce higgins ~ lbh2 at cornell dot edu ~ http://tigermtn.dev.cornell.edu
"I come very briefly to this place. I watch it move. I watch it shake."
Josh Kortbein
: You do not to have to be under 40 to have played rock. I was in a band that
Maybe that's your problem... rock wasn't very good at the beginning. :)
Josh
only offering a lighthearted opinion
--
"Writing is like prostitution.
First you do for the love of it,
Then you do it for a few friends,
And finally you do it for money."
-Moliere
Howard Peirce
> no-...@sonic.net (Fathom) wrote:
>
> }By "modern", you mean 1950's, obviously.
> }Nothing wrong with liking that, but the label is deceptive.
>
> Well, I'm no William Safire, but I'm fairly sure that "modern" is no
> longer synomous with "contemporary". (I'm not sure that "contemporary" is
> still synomous with "contemporary" for that matter)
There's a faction out there referring to "smooth" as "contemporary," even
though most of it sounds to me like warmed-over CTI with a healthy dose of
'70s pop-soul. I find the "smooth" sound rather old-fashioned.
> "Modern" has become
> associated with a historical period starting sometime after WWII and
> ending, errr...late 60's? early 70's.
Sounds about right. I'd say that both fusion and post-Ornette avant-gardism
(e.g. Art Ensemble of Chicago) represent different strains of postmodernism.
The post-WWII startoff for modernism is kind of specific to jazz; in
literature (Fitzgerald, Steinbeck) and painting (Picasso, Monet) for
example, modernism goes back to turn of the century. Modernism in classical
music (Debussy, Stravinsky) goes that far, too.
In one sense, all jazz is modern. It's the conditions of the modern
(post-agricultural) world that created jazz in the first place
(displacement, urbanization, technological progress, etc.).
> I never really understood
> "post-modern", but I believe we are not only well into that period, but
> may well be be heading into "post-post-modern" days...
Some traits of post-modernism include irony, the self-conscious
appropriation of the past, emphasising collaborative work over the
individual artist, the free mixture of multiple approaches and styles, and
the negation of progress as an ideal.
All of this neo-/retro- stuff exhibits post-modernism (maybe Cherry Poppin'
Daddies and JALC have more in common than you think). There's also some
tremendously adventurous music out there that's decidedly post-modern. John
Zorn comes to mind.
But, yes, I think post-modernism is beginning to run its course (all that
irony gets old quick)--and before anyone could even come up with a decent
name for it :-).
> So describing Mingus, Chet, Brubeck, etc, as "modern" is fairly accurate.
Agreed.
HP
Douglas Norwood
>
>> no-...@sonic.net (Fathom) wrote:
>>
>> }By "modern", you mean 1950's, obviously.
>> }Nothing wrong with liking that, but the label is deceptive.
>>
>> Well, I'm no William Safire, but I'm fairly sure that "modern" is no
>> longer synomous with "contemporary". (I'm not sure that "contemporary"
is
>> still synomous with "contemporary" for that matter)
Jazz terminology has become so corrupted that it's difficult to know what
anyone means anymore. There was a time when jazz was broadly divided
into three periods, Traditional (styles prevalent in the 20s and early
30s), Swing or Mainstream (the middle period from the mid thirties to the
end of WWII) and modern (dating from the advent of bebop). There were,
of course, further subdivisions of each period - New Orleans, Chicago,
Cool Jazz, Avant Garde, etc.).
No more! I have heard Coltrane referred to as "traditional" and
Cannonball Adderly referred to as "old-timey." Among the more ridiculous
manifestations of this blurring of the language was a price guide
published some ten years ago purporting to apply to "mainstream" jazz.
In fact, it was devoted entirely to jazz of the post-war period - bebop,
cool jazz, West Coast, etc. - and in some cases even specifically listed
some truly mainstream musicians as being "outside the scope of this
volume."
Much of the stuff currently regarded by the teeny-boppers as "swing" is a
vivid illustration of this babel.
-
DOUGLAS NORWOOD LNB...@prodigy.com
Ulf Åbjörnsson
Ulf
Josh Kortbein skrev i meddelandet <77irio$dcv$5...@news.iastate.edu>...
Marc Sabatella
>Jazz terminology has become so corrupted that it's difficult to know what
>anyone means anymore. There was a time when jazz was broadly divided
>into three periods, Traditional (styles prevalent in the 20s and early
>30s), Swing or Mainstream (the middle period from the mid thirties to the
>end of WWII) and modern (dating from the advent of bebop). There were,
>of course, further subdivisions of each period - New Orleans, Chicago,
>Cool Jazz, Avant Garde, etc.).
>
>No more! I have heard Coltrane referred to as "traditional" and
>Cannonball Adderly referred to as "old-timey." Among the more ridiculous
>manifestations of this blurring of the language was a price guide
>published some ten years ago purporting to apply to "mainstream" jazz.
>In fact, it was devoted entirely to jazz of the post-war period - bebop,
>cool jazz, West Coast, etc. - and in some cases even specifically listed
>some truly mainstream musicians as being "outside the scope of this
>volume."
I'm not sure why you consider that ridiculous. There terms are
relative, and what was "mainstream" 50 yeras ago shouldn't necessarily
be considered "mainstream" now (ditto with "modern").
For what it's worth, I've taken in my writing to using three broad
categories:
1) Classic (includes "traditional" New Orleans/Chicago and swing)
2) Mainstream (includes bop, cool, hard bop, & mid-60's Miles)
3) Modern (most forms of "free jazz")
Michael Fitzgerald
Sabatella) wrote:
>1) Classic (includes "traditional" New Orleans/Chicago and swing)
>2) Mainstream (includes bop, cool, hard bop, & mid-60's Miles)
>3) Modern (most forms of "free jazz")
So the Modern Jazz Quartet - oh nevermind....
Mike
Howard Peirce
> On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 21:38:55 GMT, ma...@outsideshore.com (Marc
> Sabatella) wrote:
> >1) Classic (includes "traditional" New Orleans/Chicago and swing)
> >2) Mainstream (includes bop, cool, hard bop, & mid-60's Miles)
> >3) Modern (most forms of "free jazz")
>
> So the Modern Jazz Quartet - oh nevermind....
Yeah, I'd prefer to see the term "modern" restricted to its broader
historical/critical sense. So, in one sense, all jazz (at least before
c. 1980) is modern--as opposed to romantic/sentimental, e.g.), but
especially the jazz from c. 1945-1968 or so exemplifies "high
modernism"--i.e. relentless pursuit of innovation and the elevation of
the artist.
OTOH, I've been dredging up the rather dated term "hot jazz," which I
find particularly useful for describing certain approaches--both in
terms of the trad and small group swing of the 20s-30s, as well as more
recent music that adopts the same attitude.
It seems to me that the mistake is categorizing jazz styles as "eras" in
time. The thing is, every time a new style is introduced, the old ones
don't go away. So, what's needed (especially in the last 20 years or so,
where a bajillion styles and substyles exist side-by-side) is a system
that categorizes styles without trying fix a style in a particular era.
I had played around briefly with the notion of "Myers-Briggs" type of
categorization, where you'd set up certain binary criteria (i.e.
blues/diatonic, swing/even, etc.) and categorize the music along those
lines, then look for patterns across stylistic eras. But I didn't go too
far with it, probably because of my disregard for personality testing
methods.
HP
Marc Sabatella
>It seems to me that the mistake is categorizing jazz styles as "eras" in
>time. The thing is, every time a new style is introduced, the old ones
>don't go away. So, what's needed (especially in the last 20 years or so,
>where a bajillion styles and substyles exist side-by-side) is a system
>that categorizes styles without trying fix a style in a particular era.
This is certainly a good point. The three broad categories I mentioned
were just "supercategories"; the individual categories within them I use
include terms like "swing", "hard bop" "expressionism", and "freebop".
Karl MacRae
--snip--
>This is certainly a good point. The three broad categories I mentioned
>were just "supercategories"; the individual categories within them I use
>include terms like "swing", "hard bop" "expressionism", and "freebop".
You know, I keep running across these terms, and I still
have not figured out what the hell they all mean (Well, ok,
I've heard enough swing to know what that 'feels' like,
but the others still mystify me).
Has anyone every put together any sort of glossary or
a list of good examples of different jazz 'styles'?
Thanks....
-Karl
--
Karl Elvis MacRae km...@cisco.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Funk(3) - <noun> - The quality or state of being funky"
-WWWebster's funky dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm)
Ulf Åbjörnsson
Marc Sabatella skrev i meddelandet ...
"freebop".
>
>--------------
>Marc Sabatella
>ma...@outsideshore.com
>
Counting is not always that easy.
Ulf
Brian Passingham
<aabj...@algonet.se> writes
But mis-quoting is?
Marc Sabatella
>>This is certainly a good point. The three broad categories I mentioned
>>were just "supercategories"; the individual categories within them I use
>>include terms like "swing", "hard bop" "expressionism", and "freebop".
>
> You know, I keep running across these terms, and I still
> have not figured out what the hell they all mean (Well, ok,
> I've heard enough swing to know what that 'feels' like,
> but the others still mystify me).
"swing" and "hard bop" are reasonably well-agreed-on terms, and are in
common use. My online Jazz Improvisation Primer ives an overview of
them; I'm sure pretty much any history of jazz would have similar
descriptions.
The terms "expressionism" and "freebop", however, are much newer, and
not in common use. I borrowed them from Kevin Whitehead, who wrote an
interesting column in the Voice a few years ago saying it was time we
stopped lumping all modern jazz music that doesn't fit nicely into the
bebop mold into the category "avant-garde". He made a case for about
four different categories of "avant-garde" jazz, and through discussion
on this newsgroup, I added another that I use in my own writings (not in
the Primer, though - all this happened after that document was
finished). Walter Davis has a nice writeup he used to post
occassionally. Now that he's back (welcome back!) maybe he'll do us the
favor of reposting it...
Michael Fitzgerald
Sabatella) wrote:
>Walter Davis has a nice writeup he used to post
>occassionally. Now that he's back (welcome back!) maybe he'll do us the
>favor of reposting it...
That post of Walt's is now on Matt Snyder's WWW site and is mentioned
in the rmb FAQ (which was re-posted just yesterday).
Mike
Howard Peirce
> Has anyone every put together any sort of glossary or
> a list of good examples of different jazz 'styles'?
>
Any good general-interest bookstore will have a number of books that offer a comprehensive history
of the music that discusses various styles. The problem is, they all disagree on particulars and
vocabulary. (As long as I've been studying this stuff, I'm still baffled by the "distinction"
between "hard bop" and "soul jazz," since different texts will tell that the same recordings or
artists categorically fall under different styles....but I digress.) Also, most definitions of jazz
are at some level based on intangibles--"blues" and "swing" are supposedly indispensible components
of jazz, but they are constantly being redefined to reflect various agendas.
Anyway, any one of these books will give you the basic vocabulary everyone uses (I can recommend
"The Beginner's Guide to Jazz" as an easy read that's generally accurate).
I think the gist of this discussion comes from those of us who find the commonly-accepted
"stylistic era" schemes to be inadequate.
HP
Walter Davis
ma...@outsideshore.com (Marc Sabatella) wrote:
>Walter Davis has a nice writeup he used to post
>occassionally. Now that he's back (welcome back!) maybe he'll do us
the
>favor of reposting it...
Someone stuck it on the web and there's a pointer to it in the RMB FAQ,
so I don't think I'll be reposting it unless I actually re-write the
darn thing. Gotta think up a name for all that Euro-free-improv
silliness before I do though. :-)
-walt
Walter Davis walter...@unc.edu
Health Data Analyst at the ph: (919) 962-1019
Institute for Research in Social Science fax: (919) 962-8980
UNC - Chapel Hill
Simon Weil
> Gotta think up a name for all that Euro-free-improv
>silliness
Vortex music? I just like the connotation of energy. There's the Vortex club in
London (though mostly other stuff gets played there).There was a British
artistic movement called the Vorticists. Doesn't cover your silliness though.
If you want to go for silliness you could always call it smooth Jazz (though
this might not be so comprehensible for people not themselves in a silly mood).
Simon Weil
Mike Zimbouski
(Walter Davis) wrote:
> Someone stuck it on the web and there's a pointer to it in the RMB FAQ,
> so I don't think I'll be reposting it unless I actually re-write the
> darn thing. Gotta think up a name for all that Euro-free-improv
> silliness before I do though. :-)
In his book, Derek Bailey frequently refers to it as simply "improvised
music." Works for me.
Mike Z
D.S.Ayers
anyone heard this. Is it interesting? I am as keen on Joe Chambers'
playing as any 60s fan but I am not sure what he has been up to since
then. Can anybody fill me in?
Thanks all.
David Ayers
Canterbury
England
Tom Kelley
>Joe Chambers has a new CD in the shops ('Mirrors' on Blue Note). Has
>anyone heard this. Is it interesting? I am as keen on Joe Chambers'
>playing as any 60s fan but I am not sure what he has been up to since
>then. Can anybody fill me in?
I was also very excited to see 'Mirrors', Chambers' first BN disc as a
leader (and thought, "It's about time!") since I'm a fan of both his
playing and his compositions from the 60's.
While his playing on 'Mirrors' is fine, I am very dissappointed in the
material, which is not nearly as 'out' or interesting as his 60's stuff.
I don't know many of the musicians on this cd, but I found their playing
to be only adequate.
I've talked with some friends who have worked in the industry, and both
agree that 'Mirrors' is yet another example of a former avant guard player
trying to have a commercial breakthrough. Unfortunately, he's loosing his
former audience in the process and not likely to impress the mainstream as
an outsider.
What's your favorite Chambers playing from the 60's? I'd pick he and
Hutcherson's abstract counterpoint on "Bi-Sectional" from Hutcherson's
"Oblique".
--
Tom Kelley
datap...@earthlink.net
Mike Zimbouski
datap...@earthlink.net (Tom Kelley) wrote:
> What's your favorite Chambers playing from the 60's? I'd pick he and
> Hutcherson's abstract counterpoint on "Bi-Sectional" from Hutcherson's
> "Oblique".
It's not from the '60s, but he was pretty damned awesome on David Murray's
_The Hill_.
Mike Z
kuja...@my-dejanews.com
> While his playing on 'Mirrors' is fine, I am very disappointed in the
> material, which is not nearly as 'out' or interesting as his 60's stuff.
> I don't know many of the musicians on this cd, but I found their playing
> to be only adequate.
>
> I've talked with some friends who have worked in the industry, and both
> agree that 'Mirrors' is yet another example of a former avant guard player
> trying to have a commercial breakthrough. Unfortunately, he's loosing his
> former audience in the process and not likely to impress the mainstream as
> an outsider.
>
> Hutcherson's abstract counterpoint on "Bi-Sectional" from Hutcherson's
> "Oblique".
>
> Tom Kelley
> datap...@earthlink.net
>
I don't really see 'Mirrors' achieving any sort of 'commercial breakthrough'.
I do agree that it is somewhat disappointing compared to his 60s stuff. On
its own merits however, I think it's a pretty good CD, just less
adventuresome than I would have hoped. There are a couple tracks where he
plays vibes and he wrote most of the tunes.
Eric
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own