Sam Rivers, Wynton's Secret Agent
tst...@natsys.fr
Went to see a double bill on Friday: Sam Rivers with French and English
accompanists, followed by the duo of Randy Weston and Max Roach. Weston
and Roach were simply wonderful, but the subject of this post is the
opening act. The concert was at the Maison de la Culture de Bobigny,
right outside Paris.
Rivers appeared with: Tony Hymas, piano; Paul Rogers, bass; Noel Akchote,
guitar; and Jacques Thollot, drums.
Hymas and Rogers appeared to be competent musicians, if nowhere near
Rivers' level, and perhaps under other circumstances they are very good.
Jacques Thollot, a mainstay of the French "free jazz" scene for decades,
is a deplorable hack. Noel Akchote is a young guy currently getting
favorable press in France, and this was the first time I'd heard him. He
was *terrible.* He would have ruined it even if everybody else were
playing seriously.
Rivers came out seeming curiously relaxed and euphoric. From what I could
understand of his mumbled introduction, the first part of the concert
consisted of improvisations on the chords of "Chelsea Bridge". You could
have fooled me, though. What followed was like a parody of "free jazz"
seen through Wynton's eyes (hence the thread title). Each separate player
made a lot of commotion, with no evidence of anyone listening to anyone
else. Akchote's guitar was so overamplified that I put my fingers in my
ears in order to hear the music more clearly. Independently of the
amplification, his playing was clumsy, pretentious, amateurish and devoid
of ideas. Since it was so loud, Rivers' contribution was almost entirely
lost in the muddle. Akchote had no business being on stage that night, he
was that bad.
They then played a couple of pieces by band members, which were more
structured. Akchote seemed unconcerned and "freely improvised" anyway,
like a very loud bull in a china shop. It became apparent that the "band"
was woefully unrehearsed, and I wouldn't be surprised if they hadn't
rehearsed at all. Rivers provided no direction to speak of, and on several
occasions the music dragged embarassingly, with the players looking at
each other as if to say, "Now what? Who's in charge here?" At one point
Thollot's snare drum actually dropped off its stand. He had to put down
his cigarette to make adjustments. (No joke!)
What a waste of time it was. I still get mad just thinking about it. The
audience was polite, and the band came back on for an encore that no one
had requested (I think it's written into the contract in France). They
played "Beatrice," Rivers' classic ballad. He delivered himself of a
pretty if off-hand solo, and Akchote tried to play a "real jazz" solo and
fell flat on his face. The End.
I don't know what excuse Rivers has for lending his name and half-asleep
presence to such an unprofessional and unartistic exercise. I heard many
people in the audience afterwards saying, "If this is free jazz, I hate
it." Score one for Wynton!
*******************
"Le jazz, c'est comme les bananes, ça se consomme sur place."
- J.P. Sartre
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
phil
To compare Sam Rivers to ynto is disgusting. Everybody has an off night
(though i have yet to sam on an off night on the numerous gigs i have seen
the last few years). Sam is one of the kindest, humblest human beings on
the planet. He has done so much to support the scene in Florida and he is
the main reason a scene in Florida has developed recently! His playing is
usually superb, on all instruments he picks up! soprano, tenor, flute and
piano.
The amount of contributions that Mr Rivers has given to the evolution of
creative music in the past 50 years is HUGE and should be the subject of a
major book, not some internet post. As a composer, performer, bandleader
and educator Sam is up there with Muhal Richard Abrams as someone who
shudl be considered an international treasure.
Sam Rivers big band will be at the gainesville jazz festival on april 20!
also on the festival for free music lovers will be the abbey rader trio
and the joe mcphee/davey williams/philip gelb trio and Also Cosmic Crewe
with Marshall Allan
phil
George Gosset
tst...@natsys.fr wrote:
>
> Went to see a double bill on Friday: Sam Rivers with French and English
> accompanists, followed by the duo of Randy Weston and Max Roach.
> guitar; and Jacques Thollot, drums.
>
> Hymas and Rogers appeared to be competent musicians, if nowhere near
> Rivers' level, and perhaps under other circumstances they are very good.
> Jacques Thollot, a mainstay of the French "free jazz" scene for decades,
> is a deplorable hack. Noel Akchote is a young guy currently getting
> favorable press in France, and this was the first time I'd heard him. He
> was *terrible.* He would have ruined it even if everybody else were
> playing seriously.
>
> Rivers came out seeming curiously relaxed and euphoric. From what I could
> understand of his mumbled introduction, the first part of the concert
> consisted of improvisations on the chords of "Chelsea Bridge". You could
> have fooled me, though. What followed was like a parody of "free jazz"
> seen through Wynton's eyes (hence the thread title).
> I don't know what excuse Rivers has for lending his name and half-asleep
> presence to such an unprofessional and unartistic exercise. I heard many
> people in the audience afterwards saying, "If this is free jazz, I hate
> it.
>" Score one for Wynton!
OK so Sam Rivers produced an also-ran. I would have been hacked off --
any chance to see Rivers is a golden oppurtunity in my book. For
instance it would be nice to see him on reeds and piano, intimate
setting. The problem of volume drowning out players is one I wish
was more recognised, especially with crude rock techniques turning
up as part of the free-jazz idiom. That old acoustic double-album
Rivers + tuba + drums type stuff would have done fine. Rivers has pulled
so many interesting ensembles out over the years.
However, I don't know what this has got to do with Wynton. He's not
a free player, and has probably never experienced the paucity of funding
and general lack of recongnition that freer spirits like Rivers have to
endure. Most of Rivers' Blue Note stuff I can't get as it has not been
re-issued. Rivers' career has been very interesting however, and lack
of current documentation should'nt have worked against him the way it
has.
Of course this is not a problem for Wynton; he's a big name; he
doesn't need to scrape together gigs all over the world, as has been
the case for so many avant-guarde artists simply ignored in their home-
land. The marketing resources thrown behind people like Wynton seem to
have left no money for these interesting guys. Hell, even Braxton spent
five years on Valium -- the competitive "product-oriented" model that
commodifies Marselis gives him a tremendous advantage; and is it that
he sells more records, or that more people have been given the chance
to hear about him ? Chickens or eggs ?
I don't know what he has said about free jazz, so I don't know how he is
vindicated here, but I hope people like him don't dump on other artists
that don't have the resources, who are'nt a household name, who've had
to struggle for years. Jazz should'nt be a competetive thing; selling
records has'nt got much to do with the quality of the records these
days, except in jazz. Well Wynton might be the exception. When I saw
Wynton, the crowd took everything he did for granted as God, clapped
after EVERY solo; it was as if he defined jazz for them. I looked
around though and no-one was tapping their feet -- it was like people
listening to a speech !! No sweat, no funk... The music was what I'd
call 'generic'.
I think people like him should keep their mouths shut regarding other
artists, seeing as how their audiences are so damn impressionable.
Walter Davis
In article <334985...@student.canterbury.ac.nz>,
George Gosset <gg...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>However, I don't know what this has got to do with Wynton.
Tom was "joking" that by putting on a single bad show, Rivers provided
support for Wynton's dismissal of "free jazz." By the same logic of
course, one could argue that the bejillion lame straight-ahead quintet
shows over the years have proved beyond any doubt that the music Wynton
does support is lifeless. Go figure.
(before anyone beefs about whether Wynton has really dismissed free
jazz, that seemed to be Tom's assumption -- so your beef is with him.)
> Most of Rivers' Blue Note stuff I can't get as it has not been
>re-issued.
I recommend the Mosaic box.
-walt
Walter Davis walter...@unc.edu or
Department of Sociology and wda...@irss.unc.edu
Health Data Analyst at the ph: (919) 962-1019
Institute for Research in Social Science fax: (919) 962-4777
UNC - Chapel Hill
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <334985...@student.canterbury.ac.nz>,
George Gosset <gg...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
> However, I don't know what this has got to do with Wynton. He's not
> a free player, and has probably never experienced the paucity of funding
> and general lack of recongnition that freer spirits like Rivers have to
> endure. Most of Rivers' Blue Note stuff I can't get as it has not been
> re-issued. Rivers' career has been very interesting however, and lack
> of current documentation should'nt have worked against him the way it
> has.
>
I think you misunderstood me. I think you took my final comment, "Score
one for Wynton!" to mean, "See? Wynton's view of 'free jazz' is confirmed
by this lousy performance."
I guess I wasn't clear--my apologies. I disagree with the viewpoint,
often ascribed to Wynton Marsalis, that free jazz is the Emperor's new
clothes, a lot of bunkum performed by frauds and poseurs to audiences who
don't know any better. My little tirade was over the fact that, to casual
fans who may not have had the opportunity to hear non-traditional jazz
(for want of a better term) played by masters, the kind of concert I
described may well seem to confirm that music's unfortunate reputation
among the uninitiated. In other words it seemed as if Rivers and co., by
playing a high-profile concert (apparently) without preparation,
commitment or seriousness, were playing into the hands of those who
criticize 'free jazz' categorically. This is what I meant when I said the
concert seemed like a parody of free jazz seen through Wynton's eyes, and
added "hence the thread title."
- Tom Storer
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <5ic7nq$ii5$1...@newz.oit.unc.edu>,
walter...@unc.edu (Walter Davis) wrote:
>
> In article <334985...@student.canterbury.ac.nz>,
> George Gosset <gg...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> >However, I don't know what this has got to do with Wynton.
>
> support for Wynton's dismissal of "free jazz." By the same logic of
> course, one could argue that the bejillion lame straight-ahead quintet
> shows over the years have proved beyond any doubt that the music Wynton
> does support is lifeless. Go figure.
>
> (before anyone beefs about whether Wynton has really dismissed free
> jazz, that seemed to be Tom's assumption -- so your beef is with him.)
OK, I can see I'd better pull my socks up here.
To answer your point, I wasn't saying that the bad concert I saw proves
the style of music itself is bad, so it doesn't, in fact, follow that
lame straight-ahead performances "prove" Wynton's favorite music is
lifeless.
Wynton, rightly or wrongly, is widely perceived to hate "free jazz," and
so I used him as the archetype of the free-jazz hater. Since "free jazz"
gets much less exposure than straight-ahead jazz, and since the casual
listening public tends to approach it with much suspicion (this is my
empirical conclusion), a bad performance--not just a bad performance,
since anyone can have an off night, but an inexcusably sloppy one such as
what I saw--will have a correspondingly greater influence on the opinion
of those who see it. Or so it seems to me. Straight-ahead jazz gets
plenty of good press and lots of exposure, so the odd lame performance
doesn't make much of a dent in its popularity.
I know Wynton gives "free jazz" the benefit of the doubt in his public
pronouncements these days; I know Sam Rivers can play; I do not want to
put either of them in jail. It just made me mad to hear people actually
saying after this concert, "Oh, so that's free jazz. Yuck." And so I
shook my finger and lectured Rivers in my post, which was perhaps
intemperate of me. No, I have not walked a mile in his shoes. Sorry if I
offended anybody.
Walter Davis
In article <8605018...@dejanews.com>, tst...@natsys.fr wrote:
>To answer your point, I wasn't saying that the bad concert I saw proves
>the style of music itself is bad, so it doesn't, in fact, follow that
>lame straight-ahead performances "prove" Wynton's favorite music is
>lifeless.
>
point -- that the logic you were parodying can be used to support the
exact opposite of the point that you were making. Hence, that you (and
from your description many others in the audience) didn't find this
particularly performance to be good doesn't (or more appropriately
shouldn't) "score one for Wynton." Your larger point, that sloppy
performances by "free" musicians reinforces the sterotype, also has its
counterpoint - that all those suit-wearing neo-boppers reinforce the
stereotype that jazz is a stale music of the past when they put on
lifeless performances.
jb...@in219b.iit.edu
If your schtick involves "keeping score", with the impending
playoffs approaching, here are a few things to keep in mind:
1) it don't mean a thing unless it is the playoffs!
2) you still hold serve as long as you don't lose at home
or the last game.
Those are the rules.
Last but not least, have we all learned to spell P-I-C-K-U-P B-A-N-D?
Extra credit if you can spell it in that parlez-vous langauge.
Jeff
Inspector Fat Ass
Indeed, Sam and the Rivbea will up the score April 20.
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <5idgog$jen$1...@newz.oit.unc.edu>,
walter...@unc.edu (Walter Davis) wrote:
>
> [SNIP] the logic you were parodying can be used to support the
> exact opposite of the point that you were making. Hence, that you (and
> from your description many others in the audience) didn't find this
> particularly performance to be good doesn't (or more appropriately
> shouldn't) "score one for Wynton." Your larger point, that sloppy
> performances by "free" musicians reinforces the sterotype, also has its
> counterpoint - that all those suit-wearing neo-boppers reinforce the
> stereotype that jazz is a stale music of the past when they put on
> lifeless performances.
You're right. And I may have had the same reaction to a lousy
straight-ahead performance if I overheard half the audience saying "This
is jazz? It stinks!"--except that I think straight-ahead jazz is in a
better position to withstand the odd disastrous concert, image-wise. For
the "free jazz" performance I commented on, my paranoid imagination
conjured up powerful, scheming enemies who would be delighted to see
"free jazz" lose its entire audience, and so I denounced the performance
as playing into their hands. That was more or less in the heat of the
moment; now I see that I was, in fact, simply being paranoid.
This makes me wonder about the whole psychology of the Wynton wars. Both
camps are paranoid as hell, aren't they? But even paranoids have enemies!
So what are you listening to these days?
- Tom Storer
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <8605245...@dejanews.com>,
jb...@in219b.iit.edu wrote:
>
> If your schtick involves "keeping score", with the impending
> playoffs approaching, here are a few things to keep in mind:
>
> 1) it don't mean a thing unless it is the playoffs!
> 2) you still hold serve as long as you don't lose at home
> or the last game.
>
> Those are the rules.
>
> Last but not least, have we all learned to spell P-I-C-K-U-P B-A-N-D?
> Extra credit if you can spell it in that parlez-vous langauge.
Oh, I don't really care about keeping score. I was just sounding off. As
for pickup bands, as I said to Walt, there is a difference between a
substandard performance because you're playing with a pickup band, and a
miserably, outrageously sloppy one. I should also point out that the
names of the "pickup band" members had been announced in the festival
program three months in advance and they were playing in a concert hall
to an audience of close to a thousand. In my book, that's not a "pickup
band."
- Tom Storer
P.S. "Des accompagnateurs inhabituels embauchés peu de temps avant le
concert." But knowing the French, they would probably say, "un groupe
pickup." Do I get the extra credit??
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <afn26658-070...@dialup51.afn.org>,
afn2...@afn.org (phil) wrote:
>
> To compare Sam Rivers to ynto is disgusting. Everybody has an off night
> (though i have yet to sam on an off night on the numerous gigs i have seen
> the last few years). Sam is one of the kindest, humblest human beings on
> the planet. He has done so much to support the scene in Florida and he is
> the main reason a scene in Florida has developed recently! His playing is
> usually superb, on all instruments he picks up! soprano, tenor, flute and
> piano.
> The amount of contributions that Mr Rivers has given to the evolution of
> creative music in the past 50 years is HUGE and should be the subject of a
> major book, not some internet post. As a composer, performer, bandleader
> and educator Sam is up there with Muhal Richard Abrams as someone who
> shudl be considered an international treasure.
If I didn't think Sam Rivers was great, I wouldn't have been so pissed
off. I'm reminded of a time when Jimmy Carter was turned away from a
restaurant shortly after he left the White House, because he wasn't
wearing a tie. Someone with him said, "Don't you know that man is the
former President of the United States?" And the reply was, "All the more
reason he should be wearing a tie." (OK, OK, it's disgusting to compare
Sam Rivers to Jimmy Carter. <g>)
I don't know what Rivers' problem was the night I saw him. I wasn't
commenting on his illustrious past or his commendable present in Florida.
I was just griping about that particular concert, which was much worse
than simply an "off night." Nor was it the sole fault of Sam Rivers, no
doubt. But he was the headliner, so I aimed at him.
I *like* Rivers' music. But that night, he resoundingly failed to
deliver, that's all. Should we pass over things like that in silence
simply because the musician is a wonderful person and does good work in
general?
- Tom Storer
MediaSeven
Yes, I agree with that. I was an aficianado of the loft scene of the 70s,
including Rivers' Studio Rivbea. I saw some great concerts, and some
terrible ones also. There was a lot of pretension accompanying that scene,
too much doodling accepted as art. There's no reason not to call that kind
of nonsense by its name.
John Motavalli
Walter Davis
In article <8605791...@dejanews.com>, tst...@natsys.fr wrote:
>
>You're right. And I may have had the same reaction to a lousy
>straight-ahead performance if I overheard half the audience saying
"This
>is jazz? It stinks!"--except that I think straight-ahead jazz is in a
>better position to withstand the odd disastrous concert, image-wise.
You're probably right on that score, although I wonder if any jazz is
really in a secure enough position that it can withstand this.
>For
>the "free jazz" performance I commented on, my paranoid imagination
>conjured up powerful, scheming enemies who would be delighted to see
>"free jazz" lose its entire audience, and so I denounced the
performance
>as playing into their hands. That was more or less in the heat of the
>moment; now I see that I was, in fact, simply being paranoid.
>
no, those evil powerful forces are out there!! :-) I think it is
fairly easy for folks to have their prejudices reinforced by a show
they don't like and perceive as sloppy, and that makes it harder to get
them past their prejudices. The confusion arose, at least partly on my
part and certainly on the other poster's part, in that you seemed to be
approaching somewhat from that attitude as well. Although I was far
from certain, to me your post seemed to lean towards "this justifies my
negative opinions of 'free' jazz" (which I would argue against) rather
than "unfortunately people will use this to justify their negative
opinions of 'free' jazz" (which I think is probably true). Sorry for
the misunderstanding.
jb...@in219b.iit.edu
In article <8605801...@dejanews.com>,
tst...@natsys.fr wrote:
> Oh, I don't really care about keeping score. I was just sounding off. As
> for pickup bands, as I said to Walt, there is a difference between a
> substandard performance because you're playing with a pickup band, and a
> miserably, outrageously sloppy one. I should also point out that the
> names of the "pickup band" members had been announced in the festival
> program three months in advance and they were playing in a concert hall
> to an audience of close to a thousand. In my book, that's not a "pickup
> band."
Well, I wasn't messing with your reaction, just the schtick you
were using to express it. As for worrying about what people might
think of jazz, one always hear strange ones. For instance,
I was in Tower of Chicago waiting in line, and there were two
people behind me talking about their purchases, and one answered,
"Oh, I got a jazz CD by Marsalis". "Which one, Wynton or Branford?".
"Wynton". "Oh good, that's ok, because Branford is too wild!"
On the other hand, even while snickering at that, it probably is
indicative why Wynton doesn't have much appeal for me.
> P.S. "Des accompagnateurs inhabituels embauchés peu de temps avant le
> concert." But knowing the French, they would probably say, "un groupe
> pickup." Do I get the extra credit??
That gets to the next point. I would call the Rivers band a pickup
band, because I would say "Des accompagnateurs embauchés par le producteur
de concert et pas le chef d'orchestre! If you say "un groupe pickup",
far from getting extra credit, you get fined by the franglais police :)
Now if the other people in the Rivers group worked a lot together
on their own, then I could see not calling it a pickup band, it
is more like "working band hires ringer".
Sometimes both situtations work, other times not.
The gig you talk about seems to have "French Jazz Promoter"
fingerprints all over it, based on what I know about the Parisien scene.
Still, it probably is true that Rivers has too much of a laissez-faire
attitude when working with musicians, if he were to come in
with Reggie Workman and Al Foster, all would have been fine. Or,
though I haven't heard them yet, presumably the musicians from his
Florida scene that he has been working more intesively. I know
that often when Rivers toured Europe, he used Steve McCraven on
drums, and he works out ok.
Jeff
jb...@in219b.iit.edu
In article <19970409125...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
media...@aol.com (MediaSeven) wrote:
>
> Yes, I agree with that. I was an aficianado of the loft scene of the 70s,
> including Rivers' Studio Rivbea. I saw some great concerts, and some
> terrible ones also. There was a lot of pretension accompanying that scene,
> too much doodling accepted as art. There's no reason not to call that kind
> of nonsense by its name.
Right , and there was nobody who knew which concerts sucked
more than Sam Rivers.
He said that much in an interview given after the loft scene was over;
that he thought many of the bands were "atrocious". So why
did he book them? There are a lot of reasons for doing so, starting
with the increase in critical mass that can be gained by making the stage
as large as possible. It also gives support to having bands play
together more often. There is a good reason why that kind of support
is needed. For some background information, see the recent
Downbeat issue in which John Corbett quotes musicians saying that
that many times 'groups' only play together about 8
times a year. Do you think that might cause the music to
suffer? If they don't play with each other more than 8 times a year,
how are they going to get the experience that is needed to get things
in high gear, to develop things "as a group". If that is not
possible, then doesn't it seem natural that musicians are going
to fall back to playing licks, familiar phrases, and things that
resemble textbook cases. Anything sound familiar here?
Regardless of whether the loft scene had great pretentions,
that seems to me to be overshadowed by the fact that it [the loft
scene] was ignored by the media until 'it was over'. (Sam Rivers,
again.) After it was over, then you had a lot of press about
it in Downbeat and the other national pubs. ( I don't know how
much the Voice was in on it, but that is not really a national
paper.)
Ultimately, the proper perpesctive to have is that it doesn't
matter whether you are an artist or the audience, often to
get to great art, you have to wade through half-baked
art, and that you can't take good art for granted.
Yes, there is a price to be paid for the "how dare you play
rotten stuff, it clashes with my tie" attitude.
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <5ig7lt$fkq$1...@newz.oit.unc.edu>,
walter...@unc.edu (Walter Davis) wrote:
> [SNIP]to me your post seemed to lean towards "this justifies my
> negative opinions of 'free' jazz" (which I would argue against) rather
> than "unfortunately people will use this to justify their negative
> opinions of 'free' jazz" (which I think is probably true). Sorry for
> the misunderstanding.
>
No problem, it was my fault. Reading it back, I see my original post is
perfectly clear--*if* you know beforehand that I am no enemy of "free
jazz." If you don't, and given the trench war concerning WM, it isn't
clear at all. Oops. Score one for communication. <g> I knew my audience
but my audience didn't know me.
You didn't answer my other question: what are you listening to these days?
- Tom Storer
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
JFR
In <334985...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> George Gosset
<gg...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> writes:
>
>tst...@natsys.fr wrote:
>>
>> Went to see a double bill on Friday: Sam Rivers with French and
English
>> accompanists, followed by the duo of Randy Weston and Max Roach.
Akchote,
>> guitar; and Jacques Thollot, drums.
>>
>> Hymas and Rogers appeared to be competent musicians, if nowhere near
>> Rivers' level, and perhaps under other circumstances they are very
good.
>> Jacques Thollot, a mainstay of the French "free jazz" scene for
decades,
>> is a deplorable hack. Noel Akchote is a young guy currently getting
>> favorable press in France, and this was the first time I'd heard
him. He
>> was *terrible.* He would have ruined it even if everybody else were
>> playing seriously.
>>
Gosh, just because they can't play music, doesn't mean that they are
not great "free" musicians. :)
>that don't have the resources, who are'nt a household name, who've had
>to struggle for years. Jazz should'nt be a competetive thing; selling
>records has'nt got much to do with the quality of the records these
>days, except in jazz. Well Wynton might be the exception. When I saw
>Wynton, the crowd took everything he did for granted as God, clapped
>after EVERY solo; it was as if he defined jazz for them. I looked
>around though and no-one was tapping their feet -- it was like people
>listening to a speech !! No sweat, no funk...
SOunds like you are saying Wynton plays "white".
Steve Berman
tst...@natsys.fr writes:
>
> Rivers appeared with: Tony Hymas, piano; Paul Rogers, bass; Noel Akchote,
> guitar; and Jacques Thollot, drums.
>
> Hymas and Rogers appeared to be competent musicians, if nowhere near
> Rivers' level, and perhaps under other circumstances they are very good.
> Jacques Thollot, a mainstay of the French "free jazz" scene for decades,
> is a deplorable hack. Noel Akchote is a young guy currently getting
> favorable press in France, and this was the first time I'd heard him. He
> was *terrible.* He would have ruined it even if everybody else were
> playing seriously.
>
> [...] Akchote's guitar was so overamplified that I put my fingers in my
> ears in order to hear the music more clearly. Independently of the
> amplification, his playing was clumsy, pretentious, amateurish and devoid
> of ideas. Since it was so loud, Rivers' contribution was almost entirely
> lost in the muddle. Akchote had no business being on stage that night, he
> was that bad.
>
Sounds like this was a bad night for all concerned. I saw Akchote playing
as part of the Recyclers (also with Benoit Delbecq on piano and Steve
Arguelles on drums) and recall his playing being pretty interesting and
inventive and fitting in well with the others; nor was it overamplified.
--Steve
Gerrit Stolte
On Wed, 09 Apr 1997 05:11:09 -0600, tst...@natsys.fr wrote:
>Oh, I don't really care about keeping score. I was just sounding off. As
>for pickup bands, as I said to Walt, there is a difference between a
>substandard performance because you're playing with a pickup band, and a
>miserably, outrageously sloppy one. I should also point out that the
>names of the "pickup band" members had been announced in the festival
>program three months in advance and they were playing in a concert hall
>to an audience of close to a thousand. In my book, that's not a "pickup
>band."
>- Tom Storer
I remeber attending a concert at the German Jazz Festival in Frankfurt
two or three years ago. There was a performance by
DeJohnette/Haden/Scofield and Joshua Redman. It was announced way
ahead of the actual gig, but the musicians just met for this one
concert, just one day before it happened. The performance had some
fine moments, but generally wasn't cohesive as it could have been.
Gerrit
"I don't know what he's playing, but it's not Jazz."
Dizzy Gillespie ueber Ornette Coleman
Walter Davis
In article <8606580...@dejanews.com>, tst...@natsys.fr wrote:
>
>You didn't answer my other question: what are you listening to these
days?
>
I've bought enough stuff lately (and exposed to some more through the
radio gig) that I haven't kept up. I made a pile of about 30 discs that
I think I need at least one more good listen to before starting to
figure out what I think and pledged to myself not to buy anything more
until I'd listened to them. Went out the next day and bought a couple
more. Ugh!
But here are some I recommend (just don't ask me why): Sam Rivers
_Concept_ (Rivbea); Clusone 3 _Love Henry_ (Gramavision); Tim Berne's
Bloodcount _Unwound_ (Screwgun, 3 cd's, his own label so it might be a
bit hard to find in France); DD Jackson's _Rhythm Dance_ (Justin Time);
Mingus Big Band _Live in Time_ (Dreyfus?); and not too long ago I found
6 Dennis Gonzalez cd's at a used store. There are probably more, but
these are the ones I can think of offhand.
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <8606459...@dejanews.com>,
jb...@in219b.iit.edu wrote:
>
> one always hear strange ones. For instance,
> I was in Tower of Chicago waiting in line, and there were two
> people behind me talking about their purchases, and one answered,
> "Oh, I got a jazz CD by Marsalis". "Which one, Wynton or Branford?".
> "Wynton". "Oh good, that's ok, because Branford is too wild!"
A guy at a party once told me he hated free jazz, because he had seen a
free jazz concert in Germany that was just awful. There was no melody, no
harmony, no rhythm--just NOISE. Mon dieu, how horrible! I asked him who
it was. He couldn't think of the name of the band, it was on the tip of
his tongue... he had seen it in a stadium in Germany. A STADIUM? Free
jazz in a stadium? Oh, yes, big crowd. Let's see, it was... oh, yeah!
Weather Report!
> [SNIP] I would call the Rivers band a pickup
> band, because I would say "Des accompagnateurs embauchés par le producteur
> de concert et pas le chef d'orchestre!"
OK, right. I see what you mean. I don't bitch when lone-gun soloists are
saddled with pickup bands who are not up to snuff, given the logistics of
that kind of touring.
> If you say "un groupe pickup",
> far from getting extra credit, you get fined by the franglais police :)
Zut! Pris! Are you sure you're not employed by the Ministre de la Culture?
> The gig you talk about seems to have "French Jazz Promoter"
> fingerprints all over it, based on what I know about the Parisien scene.
> Still, it probably is true that Rivers has too much of a laissez-faire
> attitude when working with musicians, if he were to come in
> with Reggie Workman and Al Foster, all would have been fine. Or,
> though I haven't heard them yet, presumably the musicians from his
> Florida scene that he has been working more intesively. I know
> that often when Rivers toured Europe, he used Steve McCraven on
> drums, and he works out ok.
I agree on all points. I saw Rivers once years ago with McCraven, a
guitarist and a bass guitarist, and it was beautiful. (They later
released a CD out of that concert that somehow didn't capture it very
well.)
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <5iin86$6...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
jre...@ix.netcom.com(JFR) wrote:
> [SNIP]
I would take issue with George Gosset, simply because I often notice
people sitting stock-still listening to jazz concerts, whether it swings
or not. I recently saw a large audience listening to Max Roach and nary a
foot was tapped. I let my foot make up its own mind as to whether the
music is tap-inducive. And my foot taps to Wynton. Or, to be more
precise, to Wynton's bands. Wynton isn't the only one up there... Herlin
Riley, in my book, is a fantastic drummer, as is his predecessor in
Wynton's groups, Jeff Watts.
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <xopvw3h...@milan.ims.uni-stuttgart.de>,
Steve Berman <st...@ims.uni-stuttgart.de> wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
> Sounds like this was a bad night for all concerned. I saw Akchote playing
> as part of the Recyclers (also with Benoit Delbecq on piano and Steve
> Arguelles on drums) and recall his playing being pretty interesting and
> inventive and fitting in well with the others; nor was it overamplified.
> --Steve
Well, I'll grudgingly allow that maybe it was just a bad night. But he'll
have to prove it to me! <g>
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <5ij9t5$ovb$1...@newz.oit.unc.edu>,
walter...@unc.edu (Walter Davis) wrote:
>
> In article <8606580...@dejanews.com>, tst...@natsys.fr wrote:
> >
> >You didn't answer my other question: what are you listening to these
> days?
> >
> In part because lately I've had a mild case of Dave Royko disorder. :-)
> I've bought enough stuff lately (and exposed to some more through the
> radio gig) that I haven't kept up. I made a pile of about 30 discs that
> I think I need at least one more good listen to before starting to
> figure out what I think and pledged to myself not to buy anything more
> until I'd listened to them. Went out the next day and bought a couple
> more. Ugh!
>
> But here are some I recommend (just don't ask me why): Sam Rivers
> _Concept_ (Rivbea); Clusone 3 _Love Henry_ (Gramavision); Tim Berne's
> Bloodcount _Unwound_ (Screwgun, 3 cd's, his own label so it might be a
> bit hard to find in France); DD Jackson's _Rhythm Dance_ (Justin Time);
> Mingus Big Band _Live in Time_ (Dreyfus?); and not too long ago I found
> 6 Dennis Gonzalez cd's at a used store. There are probably more, but
> these are the ones I can think of offhand.
I know a guy who always has a stack of thirty or forty *unopened* CDs
that he has yet to get around to. Sometimes I think I'm jealous, but then
I realize that an unopened CD is of no use to anyone. As I grow older,
I've come to accept philosophically that no, I will never get around to
listening to everything I would like to, life is not long enough. So I
end up buying fewer CDs but going to more concerts, and also opening up
to other styles of music than jazz, a minor revolution in my case. Who
knows how my listening habits will change once I hit forty? <g>
- Tom
Walter Davis
In article <8607486...@dejanews.com>, tst...@natsys.fr wrote:
> As I grow older,
>I've come to accept philosophically that no, I will never get around to
>listening to everything I would like to, life is not long enough.
me too ... and I still can't keep up.
> So I
>end up buying fewer CDs but going to more concerts,
I'd love the chance to go to more concerts, although to be honest I get
more return on my investment in cd's than I do in concerts.
Matt Gorney
I have the fortune to see Sam rehearse and/or play every week in
Florida & it's disheartening to see to a review like this. I can't
doubt the impressions of the reviewer, as I was here in Orlando. In
recent years, Sam has been reticent to appear with anyone outside of
his permanent circle of players in the Orlando area. Some of the
Orchestra musicians have been with him for 5-6 years & the rhythm
section for both that group & the trio have been permanent for 3-4
years.
Evidence of this work has surfaced on Sam's in-house label, Rivbea
Sound Company, in the form of "Concept", a trio recording. We plan on
a recording of his Orchestra in the next few months as well. For more
information, mail me at- riv...@magicnet.net
H. Loess
tst...@natsys.fr wrote:
>I know a guy who always has a stack of thirty or forty *unopened* CDs
>that he has yet to get around to. Sometimes I think I'm jealous, but then
>I realize that an unopened CD is of no use to anyone.
- until you're ready to listen to it and it's gone out of print.
--
Henry L.
hlo...@pipeline.com
10034...@compuserve.com
In article ,
walter...@unc.edu (Walter Davis) wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> I'd love the chance to go to more concerts, although to be honest I get
> more return on my investment in cd's than I do in concerts.
>
Oh, I don't know. This may well be true for someone who, as yet, has few
CDs. Am I right in assuming you have many many? I always feel I get more
out of a concert... unless it sucks. But even then!
Take a certain young saxophonist who shall remain nameless. I was pleased
enough by his first two or three CDs that when he passed through town, I
went to see him. But I hated it. He seemed to have a lot of raw talent
but no idea what to do with it, plus he played to the gallery in the most
shameless way. I still like those CDs, but it'll be a while before I see
him live again. I suppose it's an open question, but I feel like the
*real* musician must be the apparently immature fellow I saw on stage,
whereas the CDs represent what he can do with enough time to think about
it, edit, package, etc.
Another example is a guitarist from Kansas City, named, I think, Rod
Fleeman. He plays on some CDs by Karrin Allyson, and I never even noticed
his playing, really. But then I saw him live, and he was marvelous. There
were things about his playing I couldn't hear until I saw them, and now I
can hear them... Then there are people whose sound isn't captured well by
a recording. Betty Carter's voice, for example, is far more rich when you
hear it live than when you hear her recordings.
Anyway, just my two cents on the "return on investment" of concerts over
CDs...
Walter Davis
In article <8608524...@dejanews.com>,
10034...@compuserve.com wrote:
>In article ,
> walter...@unc.edu (Walter Davis) wrote:
>>
>> [SNIP]
>>
>> I'd love the chance to go to more concerts, although to be honest I
get
>> more return on my investment in cd's than I do in concerts.
>>
>
>Oh, I don't know. This may well be true for someone who, as yet, has
few
>CDs. Am I right in assuming you have many many? I always feel I get
more
>out of a concert... unless it sucks. But even then!
>
in the middle somewhere). Anyway, don't take my comments to mean that I
don't prefer live jazz to recorded jazz. But, I kinda look at it this
way. Most cd's run me somewhere between $12 and $15 for about 45 min-1
hour of music. Most shows around here cost around $12-$15 for about 1.5
-2 hours of music. Now, I'd much rather have that live experience than
a single listen to a cd, or two listens to a cd, or maybe even 10
listens to a cd. But, as thrilling as that live show is in the moment,
the experience is fixed in that moment and the memory becomes more
ephemeral as time passes. A recording allows me to listen repeatedly,
listen in different moods, study a piece, do a more thorough job of
putting it into context, and share the music with others.
Now, if I could afford to go to shows all the time, and we had enough
folks (and enough variety) coming through here on a regular basis, I'd
be out there every night. (I recently bought something with liner notes
from some couple in NY who claim to have seen 10,000 concerts - which
would basically be every night for about 30 years!) Or if constraints
on my time or the extent of my collection get severe enough that I only
get 1 or 2 listens to a cd, then the balance would shift. But at the
moment, viewed over time and purely econometrically, I get more bang per
buck out of cd's than live shows. Plus I can return the really shitty
ones for a refund, or at least sell 'em used for 4 or 5 bucks - try
doing that with a concert. :-)
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <5ithi7$nes$1...@newz.oit.unc.edu>,
(sigh) This is one of the things I hate about living in France. Most CDs
here cost, let's see... at 6F the $... about $23. Second-hand, I can get
them for about $13.50. Woe is me!
Cash donations gratefully accepted.
Brian Olewnick
On 14 Apr 1997 15:13:11 GMT, walter...@unc.edu (Walter Davis)
wrote:
(I recently bought something with liner notes
>from some couple in NY who claim to have seen 10,000 concerts - which
>would basically be every night for about 30 years!)
I think I have the same CD, tho' I forget which, because I also read
this and, I have to say, it might be true. The couple in question, I
believe, is Irving Stone and his wife (I'm sorry, I also forget her
name) and while I can hardly vouch for all 10,000 concerts, I can say
that since I moved to NYC in 1976, they've been at about 80% of the
jazz shows I've attended (largely leaning towards the avant-garde end
of the spectrum) and I've been to quite a few. Their stamina and
level of interest are quite impressive. My wife has pointed to Mr.
Stone and said, "That'll be you in 25 years." Hopefully so.
Cheers,
Brian O.
Tom Waters
Brian Olewnick (ole...@mail.idt.net) wrote:
: On 14 Apr 1997 15:13:11 GMT, walter...@unc.edu (Walter Davis)
: wrote:
I'm pretty sure I can picture the couple you are referring to, having
seen them at most of the performances I went to between 86 and 90.
Tom
--
Thomas Waters
twa...@use.usit.net
1021 East Oak Hill Avenue, Knoxville TN 37917
Dig And Be Dug In Return
sabutin
walter...@unc.edu (Walter Davis) wrote:
>In article <8605018...@dejanews.com>, tst...@natsys.fr wrote:
>>To answer your point, I wasn't saying that the bad concert I saw proves
>>the style of music itself is bad, so it doesn't, in fact, follow that
>>lame straight-ahead performances "prove" Wynton's favorite music is
>>lifeless.
>>
>Of course nothing is proven or even demonstrated. That was precisely my
>point -- that the logic you were parodying can be used to support the
>exact opposite of the point that you were making. Hence, that you (and
>from your description many others in the audience) didn't find this
>particularly performance to be good doesn't (or more appropriately
>shouldn't) "score one for Wynton." Your larger point, that sloppy
>performances by "free" musicians reinforces the sterotype, also has its
>counterpoint - that all those suit-wearing neo-boppers reinforce the
>stereotype that jazz is a stale music of the past when they put on
>lifeless performances.
>-walt
>Walter Davis walter...@unc.edu or
>Department of Sociology and wda...@irss.unc.edu
>Health Data Analyst at the ph: (919) 962-1019
>Institute for Research in Social Science fax: (919) 962-4777
>UNC - Chapel Hill
============
Do you (or anyone else who wishes to contribute here) think that
perhaps if the MAJORITY of performances/performers in a certain idiom,
be it "free jazz", "neobop", or any other popularly recognized form,
are as lame as this Sam Rivers performance (as well as innumerable
"suit-wearing neo-bopper" performances) seems to have been, it means
that the idoms themselves are fairly well worn out?
I ask this because I remember when it was almost impossible, at
least in NYC, to find a "bad" jazz performance of ANY kind...say the
late '60s through the '70s, the Vanguard/Slug's/Five Spot/Half Note
era, and certainly during the 52cd St. bebop revolution as well.
EVERYTHING was "new"...alive, full of creative ferment, and
artistically (if not financially)healthy.
Maybe this endless argument between proponents of so-called "free"
jazz and equally so-called "neo-bop" jazz is really indicative of the
fact that BOTH idioms are essentially played out, that since so little
new can be done in either, it's time to look around for OTHER
approaches.
Sabutin
jb...@in219b.iit.edu
In article <5j5cmu$b...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
> I ask this because I remember when it was almost impossible, at
> least in NYC, to find a "bad" jazz performance of ANY kind...say the
> late '60s through the '70s, the Vanguard/Slug's/Five Spot/Half Note
> era, and certainly during the 52cd St. bebop revolution as well.
> EVERYTHING was "new"...alive, full of creative ferment, and
> artistically (if not financially)healthy.
(except for that free clarinetist sitting in with Bill Evans, right?)
>
> Maybe this endless argument between proponents of so-called "free"
> jazz and equally so-called "neo-bop" jazz is really indicative of the
> fact that BOTH idioms are essentially played out, that since so little
> new can be done in either, it's time to look around for OTHER
> approaches.
I am surpised nobody responded to this note.
I made had similar points too in some other notes. (the hot water
being all used up.) It is hard to gauge from where the new
listeners approach jazz, for those just discovering jazz it does
give them a new music to hear. But I think it is a worse
situation for musicians, they have been hearing it so much, and
approached by so many people so many different ways.
As for OTHER approaches, what do you have in mind? Jazz seems
to have borrowed from just about every other form of music:
african, classical, indian, rock, brazil, funk, and so on.
I remember reading a review of a new building, commenting
on how conservative the architecture was, that it was a lame
post-modern review of so many previous styles. And then concluded
that maybe there isn't anything new happening because they
are waiting for the new century (and millenium) to
try something new, so they are just flipping through the
channels of history one more time before they have to
put it away.
On the other hand, other people have said "history has ended".
Jeff
Marc Sabatella
>> Maybe this endless argument between proponents of so-called "free"
>> jazz and equally so-called "neo-bop" jazz is really indicative of the
>> fact that BOTH idioms are essentially played out, that since so little
>> new can be done in either, it's time to look around for OTHER
>> approaches.
>
>I am surpised nobody responded to this note.
>
>I made had similar points too in some other notes. (the hot water
>being all used up.)
I may or may not have observed then that Braxton and Lacy have made
similar comments - saying that they tried playing completely freely and
found it wanting - the lack of structure produced a sort of "white
noise" of sameness through too much randomness, and also to much
repetition of cliche. I think the two of them are probably among the
best examples of musicians who have found a new path - one that involves
new structures, rather than building new performances from the
older structures or tossing all structures away.
>As for OTHER approaches, what do you have in mind? Jazz seems
>to have borrowed from just about every other form of music:
>african, classical, indian, rock, brazil, funk, and so on.
Borrowing is cool, but it need not be so explicit.
--
Marc Sabatella
--
ma...@outsideshore.com
http://www.outsideshore.com/
sabutin
jb...@in219b.iit.edu wrote:
>In article <5j5cmu$b...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
> sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> I ask this because I remember when it was almost impossible, at
>> least in NYC, to find a "bad" jazz performance of ANY kind...say the
>> late '60s through the '70s, the Vanguard/Slug's/Five Spot/Half Note
>> era, and certainly during the 52cd St. bebop revolution as well.
>> EVERYTHING was "new"...alive, full of creative ferment, and
>> artistically (if not financially)healthy.
>(except for that free clarinetist sitting in with Bill Evans, right?)
===========================
Jeez, I SAID "almost" !!!
Talk about long memories !!!
============================
>>
>> Maybe this endless argument between proponents of so-called "free"
>> jazz and equally so-called "neo-bop" jazz is really indicative of the
>> fact that BOTH idioms are essentially played out, that since so little
>> new can be done in either, it's time to look around for OTHER
>> approaches.
>I am surpised nobody responded to this note.
>I made had similar points too in some other notes. (the hot water
>being all used up.) It is hard to gauge from where the new
>listeners approach jazz, for those just discovering jazz it does
>give them a new music to hear. But I think it is a worse
>situation for musicians, they have been hearing it so much, and
>approached by so many people so many different ways.
>As for OTHER approaches, what do you have in mind? Jazz seems
>to have borrowed from just about every other form of music:
>african, classical, indian, rock, brazil, funk, and so on.
===================================
I don't necessarily MEAN "borrowing", although that's not out of
the question. There is a place within every artist which, when
accessed, produces "new" music ("new" art of ANY sort), even if that
playing is couched in forms, in idioms, that were previously founded.
Sonny Rollins was certainly playing in a quartet situation founded
a decade or more before he began to find himself, but there is no
doubt every note he played was "new".
Thoroughly based in the "jazz" and "bebop" traditions, of course.
Not the least bit revolutionary in terms of form or instrumentation;
necessarily related to the discoveries of Bird, Dizzy, Monk, et al
10 years before...but ABSOLUTELY NEW.
Trummy Young said it all...
" 'T'aint whatcha do, it's the way 'atcha do it."
If the various jazz traditions are so played out that talented
players can't FIND a position (w/in) where they can BE "new"
(or "true" or "real" or..."themselves") then they must create a NEW
paradigm, the same way as the previous rejuvenators of the idiom
did...experimentation, luck, talent...or "jazz" will die a slow and
dull death.
======================================
===========================================
>I remember reading a review of a new building, commenting
>on how conservative the architecture was, that it was a lame
>post-modern review of so many previous styles. And then concluded
>that maybe there isn't anything new happening because they
>are waiting for the new century (and millenium) to
>try something new, so they are just flipping through the
>channels of history one more time before they have to
>put it away.
>On the other hand, other people have said "history has ended".
=====================
Tell THAT to to the Hutu tribe, or Tim McVeigh, or Mobutu, or Bill
Clinton. Only way "history" ends is when WE end.
And maybe not even then.
Nobody's "flipping through channels". It's a just DAMNED hard to
find a place, a Minton's, a 52cd St., a Blue Note record company, that
isn't striving so hard for the home run that they can't wait for the
humman necessity of trial and error...ESPECIALLY the "error" part.
Can't MAKE a mistake (at least not a great big one) live from
Lincoln Center, too much money involved.
Can't FOUND an idiom on the concert hall/big-time record/big-time
club/big-time festival scene, too many paying customers waiting to be
"satisfied".
Kinda too bad, but that's the way it is, here and now. There and
somewhere else, some other time and place to come...?
I dunno; I just keep looking.
Sabutin
tst...@natsys.fr
> [SNIP]Maybe this endless argument between proponents of so-called "free"
> jazz and equally so-called "neo-bop" jazz is really indicative of the
> fact that BOTH idioms are essentially played out, that since so little
> new can be done in either, it's time to look around for OTHER
> approaches.
In article <5jmb8j$2...@camel4.mindspring.com>,
sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
> [SNIP] There is a place within every artist which, when
> accessed, produces "new" music ("new" art of ANY sort), even if that
> playing is couched in forms, in idioms, that were previously founded.
>
>
> [SNIP] If the various jazz traditions are so played out that talented
> players can't FIND a position (w/in) where they can BE "new"
> (or "true" or "real" or..."themselves") then they must create a NEW
> paradigm, the same way as the previous rejuvenators of the idiom
> did...experimentation, luck, talent...or "jazz" will die a slow and
> dull death.
You seem to be saying, on the one hand, that the "new" comes from the
artist, not the form; and on the other, that the "new" *does* depend on
the form. Isn't there a contradiction?
- Tom Storer
sabutin
tst...@natsys.fr wrote:
>- Tom Storer
===============================
Isn't there a contradiction?
Yup.
Otherwise it'd be easy.
None of us choose WHEN we're born, in what stage the various idioms
and styles of our culture exist when we begin to consider things; and
there are no simple pathways into an understanding of the totality of
the actions and interactions of the billions of people who we
laughingly call "us".
The artist, the politician, the lawyer, the philosopher...ALL those
involved in the "humanities" have to find their OWN ways into the
maelstrom of human endeavour.
Maybe one is born in a time of revolution, and the decisions are
simpler...Bolshevik, Czarist, or get out of the way...be-bopper,
traditionalist, or uncommitted...
Maybe one is born at the END of a scene...but BEFORE the clear
beginning of another, or during a time af great cultural expansion,
like today, when all the cultures and styles of the world are almost
instantly available for our perusal...where to choose, WHAT to choose?
The points I was examining in that post were that artists who find
the older forms (and I include "free jazz" in that) somewhat limiting
are stuck in a fully developed business scene that appears to have
almost no interest in idiomatic expansion (a disastrously short term
view, in my opinion).
On the other hand,those who do NOT find the older forms limiting
(by which I mean those who do NOT sound like someone else, or some
combination of several someones, yet mostly play within previous set
idiomatic boundaries), if they are as yet fairly well unestablished in
the jazz "business", get passed over in favor of the retro "style du
jour" players who DO sound like some readily identifiable musician or
musicians.(Said older musicians usually being recently deceased and
totally re-issued out. [read "Can't make much more profit on their
work, but people still want to hear a Getz/Coltrane/Miles Davis/Bill
Evans/you fill in the names kind of sound...
What to do, what to do...? " Clone, baby, clone.])
Maybe Wynton's tactic of looking back further, looking into Duke
and Pops and beyond for inspiration is one of the correct
answers...he's certainly being outstandingly successful in terms of
the business; there's no doubt he means what he's doing, and his
music (the music he and his musicians are making) certainly sounds
like no one else, this last couple of years....
I really don't HAVE any answers, only a whole bunch of questions.
As I said at the end of the post in question, "I dunno, I just keep
looking."
Have fun, and if you figure it all out, don't tell anybody...you'll
just end up giving away the plot.
Sabutin
Coutier Thierry
Sabutin wrote :
> The points I was examining in that post were that artists who find
> the older forms (and I include "free jazz" in that) somewhat limiting
> are stuck in a fully developed business scene that appears to have
> almost no interest in idiomatic expansion (a disastrously short term
> view, in my opinion).
I don't think free-jazz players rejected all previous jazz forms. They
emphasized very much on collective improvisation, then i am sure that Coltrane
and so on were as inspired by R&B saxophone players like Illinois Jacquet as by
Be-bop players.
This is very significant, jazz comes from the blues and the funkiness and blues
has been a constant basis for every musical change in jazz.
Why ? Because basically it's got the roots in it. Blues is a popular form, i
would like to say an instictive form. A lot of jazz artists contributions were
to mold something new from this material with their knowledge and abilities, but
at the beginning they needed this instintive expression.
Now, some people have the roots in them. It's a gift. They have this special
thing to express. Those very few ones can create a new form alone. Those are
probably geniuses.
How can jazz evolve now ? Maybe jazz artists should probably look towards
nowadays urban folklore, namely hip-hop and techno, that's where the roots are
now, it's up to jazz artists to start making it evolve into something more
elaborated now.
Why hip-hop and techno and not other folklores ? Because these two forms are
from black american expression. And the only definition i can find for jazz, is
that it has to be related in some way to a black american expression.
BTW, jazz nearly means nothing as a term. Find me a good definition. Duke
Ellington rejected the term, Nina Simone too, and so on, only Wynton Marsalis's
friends seem to have a clear definition of what "jazz" has to be.
If you want todays jazz, listen to Carl Craig's last album : "More songs about
food and revolution".
Thierry.
sabutin
cou...@cenerg.cma.fr (Coutier Thierry) wrote:
>Sabutin wrote :
>> The points I was examining in that post were that artists who find
>> the older forms (and I include "free jazz" in that) somewhat limiting
>> are stuck in a fully developed business scene that appears to have
>> almost no interest in idiomatic expansion (a disastrously short term
>> view, in my opinion).
>I don't think free-jazz players rejected all previous jazz forms. They
>emphasized very much on collective improvisation, then i am sure that Coltrane
>and so on were as inspired by R&B saxophone players like Illinois Jacquet as by
>Be-bop players.
============================
That's not what I was saying.
I consider "free jazz" ITSELF an older style, one which
conceivably has very little to offer to contemporary musicians.
As soon as you lay a NAME on something, whether it's "jazz", "free"
"bebop", that "thing" begins to be limited by something other than its
OWN innate possibilities.
S.
Doug Wamble
> cou...@cenerg.cma.fr (Coutier Thierry) wrote:
a lot of stuff, so I snipped it.
People who think jazz has to stoop to inferior art like rap
are helping to destroy jazz music.
H. Loess
Doug Wamble <Swin...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>> cou...@cenerg.cma.fr (Coutier Thierry) wrote:
Simply by thinking it?
--
Henry L.
hlo...@pipeline.com
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <5jo0ij$16k2$1...@cemef.cma.fr>,
cou...@cenerg.cma.fr (Coutier Thierry) wrote:
> [SNIP]
> How can jazz evolve now ? Maybe jazz artists should probably look towards
> nowadays urban folklore, namely hip-hop and techno, that's where the roots are
> now, it's up to jazz artists to start making it evolve into something more
> elaborated now.
>
> Why hip-hop and techno and not other folklores ? Because these two forms are
> from black american expression. And the only definition i can find for jazz,
> is that it has to be related in some way to a black american expression.
I have trouble with this. Deciding that jazz "has to" look to black
"urban folklore" for its prime material, because it has done so in the
past, is just as much an unnecessary constraint as to say that because it
swung a certain way in the past, it must swing that way forever.
I don't see why jazz musicians should be on a constant look-out for
"roots" to make more elaborate, hence less "rooted," then drop them
because they are no longer "the roots", and so on and so on. This point
of view seems to value popular music only insofar as it provides some
grass-roots legitimacy to transformations of it. To insist on turning to
popular music solely because it *is* popular music is to say that
musicians should base their decisions on non-musical grounds. (Which can
be argued, I suppose.)
You say hip-hop and techno are "the roots" and are therefore the proper
place to look for material for a renewal of jazz. This assumes that it is
the "roots"-ness or popular practice of the music that is important,
rather than the expressive quality of the music itself. Blues was a
"roots" music, but it was also an extremely rich and fertile form.
Jazz and techno? Maybe it would be "rooted." My prediction is that it
would also suck. I'd rather listen to young lions.
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <5jo9n3$p...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>
> [SNIP]
> As soon as you lay a NAME on something, whether it's "jazz", "free"
> "bebop", that "thing" begins to be limited by something other than its
> OWN innate possibilities.
Hey, you gotta admit that names are damned useful. Think of classified
ads. "Group seeks pianist to play music." Think of advertising. "Music
concert Saturday night." Think of newsgroups. "rec.music.music.music."
When a "thing's" characteristics change, we change the name. Jazz to
swing to bebop, etc. etc. No big deal. Long live labels! <g>
Coutier Thierry
Doug wrote :
> cou...@cenerg.cma.fr (Coutier Thierry) wrote:
>
> a lot of stuff, so I snipped it.
>
> People who think jazz has to stoop to inferior art like rap
> are helping to destroy jazz music.
Try to put more stuff/substance in your post Doug because you don't prove anything.
Thierry.
Coutier Thierry
Tom Storer wrote :
> I have trouble with this. Deciding that jazz "has to" look to black
> "urban folklore" for its prime material, because it has done so in the
> past, is just as much an unnecessary constraint as to say that because it
> swung a certain way in the past, it must swing that way forever.
In this thread, we are talking about young jazz musicians who have troubles in
finding their own self expression and position in todays music, which in other
areas is extremely fast moving.
I just said, that jazz during the century often mutated according to what was
happening in popular music, and especially that Blues played a very big role in
all the jazz forms, maybe "young lions" (as marketers and their victims call
them) would better focus on what is happening in today's popular music than
focus on what was happening only in the 40's. In that case precisely, jazz would
turn to be a dead art form. Because art must give some New.
> ...This assumes that it is the "roots"-ness or popular practice of the music
> that is important, rather than the expressive quality of the music itself.
I think that popular music or folklore generally comes from a very deep,
instinctive, spontaneous understanding of human condition. That's why it has the
roots which implies that it has a "meaning" or that it "makes sense", which
implies it will express something important.
Old bluesman could talk for hours about what is the blues and it means.
I think that hip-hop and techno have the roots. Some other folklores too, but I
talked about these ones because they are a black american popular expression
result, isn't that what jazz is all about ? Black american expression ? But you
may have a better definition, i'm asking you.
> I don't see why jazz musicians should be on a constant look-out for
> "roots" to make more elaborate, hence less "rooted," then drop them
> because they are no longer "the roots", and so on and so on.
I don't restrict this discussion to jazz only, if the artists can not invent
their inner expression, like obviously the "young lions", I think they have to
work this beautiful matter that is popular expression to make it more beautiful,
more crafted with more science, to fertilise it if i use your word.
And I already said it in my previous post, some already have their own langage,
their view : Armstrong, Charlie parker, Monk, Coltrane, those have their inner
roots, but they are above the other ones.
About young jazz musicians, there is also a very important problem, they did not
grow up listening to 40's jazz only. They have grown up listening to funk, to
rock, to rap, now to techno, for a lot of them jazz has been a culture they
learned in music schools, like Berklee for instance, but that's not where they
are coming from! There is a schizophrenic risk for them in playing what please
their teachers and not themselves.
> Blues was a "roots" music, but it was also an extremely rich and fertile form.
> Jazz and techno? Maybe it would be "rooted." My prediction is that it
> would also suck. I'd rather listen to young lions.
We will see, time will tell, in my opinion so called "young lions" won't stay an
eternity, whereas the techno/house scene has been growing for 10 years now and
is still expanding. You probably don't know this musical form very well, but it
is extremely related to jazz.
One more thing, IMO James Brown is as important as Duke Ellington in black
american music.
Thierry.
Doug Wamble
You want proof?
Go to a record store or "jazz" festival and tell me
what you hear. That's all the proof you need.
Tom Walls
> One more thing, IMO James Brown is as important as Duke Ellington in black
> american music.
>
>
James Brown's music may have had tremendous influence on contemporary
musicians(and, let me say, it was not just tremendous but terrific);
however, IMHO the contemporary musician can learn much more from the music
of Duke Ellington.
I listen to, and enjoy, a wide spectrum of music, but I find myself
returning to certain recordings again and again. There are particular
performances and/or compostions that mean so much to me: they deepen my
understanding of music(and life). As a musician I am provided with new
musical tools. Put me on a desert island with Duke and I'd have source
material for a lifetime of learning, and (I hazard to say) anything I
might learn from James, I already learned from Duke.
--
Psychochromatically speaking,
T. Walls
sabutin
tst...@natsys.fr wrote:
>In article <5jo9n3$p...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
> sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> [SNIP]
>> As soon as you lay a NAME on something, whether it's "jazz", "free"
>> "bebop", that "thing" begins to be limited by something other than its
>> OWN innate possibilities.
>Hey, you gotta admit that names are damned useful. Think of classified
>ads. "Group seeks pianist to play music." Think of advertising. "Music
>concert Saturday night." Think of newsgroups. "rec.music.music.music."
>When a "thing's" characteristics change, we change the name. Jazz to
>swing to bebop, etc. etc. No big deal. Long live labels! <g>
>- Tom Storer
=========================
The people who first PLAYED the music didn't call it jazz or swing
or bebop, at least not among themselves, or more importantly, TO
themselves.
When a thing's TEMPORARY characteristics change, those who are in
the AUDIENCE change the name. No big deal, until that nomenclature
comes around and traps young musicians who weren't there when the
"jazz", "swing", and "bebop" were just "music".
S.
MarkMick
I think that jazz is about improvising on the spot, in front of an
audience. It's not about editting and mixing and packaging an album. If
a player sounds immature in a live playing situation, it most likely means
that he is. CDs are fine for learning and listening, but catching live
jazz allows you to see jazz in it's truest form, ideally.
Mark Micklethwaite
skip elliott bowman
: @camel4.mindspring.com> <8618667...@dejanews.com>
: <5jnnu8$l...@camel7.mindspring.com> <5jo0ij$16k2$1...@cemef.cma.fr>
: <5jo9n3$p...@camel2.mindspring.com> <335FB0...@nwu.edu>
: <5jq595$1qdc$1...@cemef.cma.fr> <3360CC...@nwu.edu>
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016
Distribution:
Doug Wamble <Swin...@nwu.edu> wrote:
: > coutier wrote:
: > > Doug wrote :
: > > People who think jazz has to stoop to inferior art like rap
: > > are helping to destroy jazz music.
Like Clark Terry? I saw him on the 1994 Grammies performing with the
Fugees. I also have heard rap and hip-hip recordings with Ron Carter, Dr.
Donald Byrd, and others. Not samples, live. Are the trying to destroy
jazz?
I can just see CT and his cronies sitting at a table in a in a basement
somewhere, chuckling evilly and plotting the destruction of jazz: "We
shall succeed where Ornette, Coltrane, and Bird failed! Muhuhahahahaha!!"
: > Try to put more stuff/substance in your post Doug because you don't
: > prove anything.
: You want proof?
: Go to a record store or "jazz" festival and tell me
: what you hear. That's all the proof you need.
We-ell, the last jazz festival I went to featured the Count Basie
Orchestra (w/Frank Foster), Eliane Elias, Sonny Rollins, and MY main man
on trumpet Arturo Sandoval. On the same day. They were also in on the
fiendish plot to destroy jazz. Yah. I heard them myself. The fiends!
Sorry. I know, but I couldn't resist. It was too good.
Skip
John Monroe
On 25 Apr 1997, Coutier Thierry wrote:
> I think that popular music or folklore generally comes from a very deep,
> instinctive, spontaneous understanding of human condition. That's why it has the
> roots which implies that it has a "meaning" or that it "makes sense", which
> implies it will express something important.
I'm not sure that this vision of popular music does justice to the people
who make it. It seems a bit condescending to think that rappers, or
bluesmen, or gypsy violinists are making music simply because their
"instincts" tell them to. Even if they don't create in the same cultural
context as more cultivated musicians, their music-making is just as rich
an intellectual and imaginative activity. Is Robert Johnson any more or
less "genuine" or "spontaneous" than Beethoven? Who's to say that Johnson
didn't put as much intellectual effort into his songs as Beethoven put
into his compositions? Would that effort somehow make Johnson less
"authentic" by making his music less "instinctual"? I hope not.
It seems like you're arguing that less privileged musicians produce music
by means of a "primitive" reflex, something presumably lost to those who
are higher up on the social ladder. This is a dangerous argument to
make. The way you couch it, it seems positive: poor people who make music
produce more "authentic" art, providing a fund of vital experience for
those who are better off and wish to profit from that raw vitality.
However, one could just as easily see this argument as highly negative and
discriminatory: why are poorer people denied the right to be considered
as thinking human beings, reduced instead to animal-like creatures of pure
instinct?
If it were up to me, I'd say that both Johnson and Beethoven--to pick two
examples--are equally "authentic," and both represent particular
intellectual and imaginative solutions to particular creative problems.
> I think that hip-hop and techno have the roots. Some other folklores too, but I
> talked about these ones because they are a black american popular expression
> result, isn't that what jazz is all about ? Black american expression ?
Jazz was unquestionably invented by Black Americans, and a large number of
its greatest practitioners, so far, have been and are Black. However, I
think it's doing a disservice to the genius of the Black creators and
developers of Jazz to argue that the musical form they invented is *only*
a vehicle for Black experience.
On the contrary, the greatness of Jazz lies in the fact that it can give
voice to the *human* experience. Musicians from ALL cultures can bring
aspects of their unique backgrounds to their playing of Jazz, can speak
its language with an infinite variety of accents. Jazz is a great music,
in part, because it is so pluralistic. The forms of Jazz are rich enough
that an endless variety of statements can be made, expressing any number
of different ideals, approaches and heritages. That's why Jazz is now
being played all over the world--everyone seems to be able to find
something of themselves in the form.
I can think of no greater testament to the creative abilities of Jazz's
founders than that, and every time I hear the music (Trad, bop, free,
whatever) I'm awe-struck by their acheivement.
Maybe Jazz and hip-hop will meet and great music will result from their
coming together, but there are plenty of other directions the music could
go as well. It's already doing that, to a certain extent (Franz Koglmann,
or Pino Minafra, or Rabih Abou-Khalil, for example). And who's to say
that in the twenty-first century, Jazz can't go in a million directions at
once?
John Monroe.
jb...@in219b.iit.edu
> I consider "free jazz" ITSELF an older style, one which
> conceivably has very little to offer to contemporary musicians.
hehehe, if all it ever did was to get musicians to loosen up
and not play like a bunch of godamned robots (like they always
do), then it has MUCH to offer contemporary or any other kind of
musicians.
In fact, I know of this bass player that plays in classical
orchestras in the south of France, but he also has played in
free jazz groups. When he does contemporary classical music,
the composers love the way he plays their music, because he
just plays it like free shit, and they like the energy.
Jeff
Doug Wamble
skip elliott bowman wrote:
> Like Clark Terry? I saw him on the 1994 Grammies performing with the
> Fugees. I also have heard rap and hip-hip recordings with Ron Carter, Dr.
> Donald Byrd, and others. Not samples, live. Are the trying to destroy
> jazz?
Look, Skip, I like a lot of the hip hop stuff that has jazz
musicians on it. Check out the Red Hot and Cool CD, or Digable
Planets, that's some bad stuff. That ain't the point, my man.
That Thierry person was saying that jazz should base its further
developments off of hip hop, and that's a load of poop, in my
book. Hip Hop is not an artform that jazz can draw from. It
isn't even on the same level, if we're talking strictly in
musical terms. Hip Hop is more of a cultural movement than
anything. Sure, we all dig it and it's produced some provocative
stuff, but let's be real. Snoop Dog and Public Enemy don't know
a thing about harmony, melody, or original grooves. They are
masters of creating infectious jams based off of P-Funk and
James Brown. Hell, most of it has become incestuous. Rappers
are now sampling old rap tunes to make their new stuff. How
can that help jazz music? Any kid with a few bucks can get a
sampler, a turntable and a four track and make some good hip-hop
music. But it takes YEARS, folks, to be a good jazz musician.
> I can just see CT and his cronies sitting at a table in a in a basement
> somewhere, chuckling evilly and plotting the destruction of jazz: "We
> shall succeed where Ornette, Coltrane, and Bird failed! Muhuhahahahaha!!"
Whatever.
> We-ell, the last jazz festival I went to featured the Count Basie
> Orchestra (w/Frank Foster), Eliane Elias, Sonny Rollins, and MY main man
> on trumpet Arturo Sandoval. On the same day. They were also in on the
> fiendish plot to destroy jazz. Yah. I heard them myself. The fiends!
Uh-huh. You mean to tell me there wasn't a single smooth-pap
group on the bill? Well, that's great. But look at the major
festivals, Newport-JVC, Jacksonville, Montreaux...what do you
see? Yellowjackets, Spyro Gyra, Richard Eliott, Boney James,
Najee, Kenny G, etc...
Maybe two or three groups that play JAZZ MUSIC.
Sad, sad, sad...
Coutier Thierry
MarkMick wrote :
> I think that jazz is about improvising on the spot, in front of an
> audience. It's not about editting and mixing and packaging an album.
Yes, I completely agree, but in hip-hop improvisation is the biggest part of the
game. Dj's use their turntables like musicians do, capture the mood, goes where
the public wants it or on the contrary surprises him, exploring the full spectra
of emotions. Rappers develop their style, improvise with words. They all can
burn themselves as jass soloist can do.
Thierry.
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <5jq8qb$12jg$1...@cemef.cma.fr>,
cou...@cenerg.cma.fr (Coutier Thierry) wrote:
>
> [SNIP] jazz during the century often mutated according to what was
> happening in popular music
Did it? Jazz easily ingested the influence of blues; then during the
swing era, jazz *was* popular music. What mutations followed? Did bebop
espouse happenings in popular music? Hardly. "Hard bop" was a movement
towards funkier, churchier sounds, but I don't think this was a reaction
to what was happening in popular music. Free jazz, modal jazz, the 60's
modernists... did these styles delve deep into the popular music of the
time? OK, when Miles and co. went electric, there I'd agree with you...
has fusion been a source of great vitality for jazz as a whole? I don't
think so, personally.
> I think that popular music or folklore generally comes from a very deep,
> instinctive, spontaneous understanding of human condition.
I see jazz musicians as being very open to outside influences, whether
from popular music, classical music, ethnic musics or whatever sounds
interesting. You think hip-hop and techno would be good sources for those
who are short of inspiration, because you think they show a "very deep,
instinctive, spontaneous understanding of the human condition." I think
they would not be good sources because I don't evaluate them the same way
you do. Personally, I don't think they have much to offer the jazz
tradition. I don't rule out the possibility of someone using such
influences to good effect, however, and I like Steve Coleman's work, for
example. He's a big exception.
> isn't that what jazz is all about ? Black american expression ?
Without African-American culture, jazz would not have been created.
Musicologically, I think it's accurate to call it an African-American
tradition... but one whose umbrella spreads very wide. It is problematic
to say that jazz "is about" black American expression when you consider
the very large number of non-black Americans and non-Americans, period,
who play jazz. Should a Japanese drummer, a French accordeonist, a
Norwegian guitarist, a South African pianist, an Argentinian saxophonist,
etc. etc., not to mention white American musicians, all of whom play jazz
in one flavor or another, wake up in the morning and say to themselves,
"Today I will contribute to black American expression?"
I once spoke to a great (black) jazz singer who asked me to describe a
local (French) group, and I replied that they played jazz, but with a
large input of European sources. She said, "Well, that's what they ought
to do." So to the extent that people all around the world play jazz
today, who should go to what sources, folk or other, to recharge their
batteries? If you think hip-hop and techno would be good in the mix,
fine, but the origin of "folk" sources needn't limit who can or should
use them well. Jazz is a cosmopolitan music if ever there was one.
The great achievement of the creators of jazz is that their music proved
to be so strongly expressive that it is universal. Black Americans have
given mankind a music that is about *human* experience, and to say that
is only "about black American experience" denies its scope.
> I don't restrict this discussion to jazz only, if the artists can not invent
> their inner expression, like obviously the "young lions", I think they have
> to work this beautiful matter that is popular expression to make it more
> beautiful, more crafted with more science, to fertilise it if i use your word.
Certainly if an artist is having trouble finding a means of
self-expression, he or she should keep looking, inside and out. To say
popular music is necessarily the right place to look seems arbitrary to
me.
> About young jazz musicians, there is also a very important problem, they did
> not grow up listening to 40's jazz only. They have grown up listening to funk,
> to rock, to rap, now to techno, for a lot of them jazz has been a culture they
> learned in music schools, like Berklee for instance, but that's not where they
> are coming from!
Presumably if they went to the trouble to learn it in music schools, it's
something they like and want to pursue. Again, I don't see that there's
any logical *necessity* to "play where you are coming from" if you have
found someplace you like better... many jazz musicians listen to
classical music, rap, rock, and any number of styles for their pleasure
but don't what to play those styles themselves. Some do. John Lewis had
enough "roots" in classical music, apparently, to incorporate elements of
classical form in the MJQ's book, and to record Bach in a jazzy style
himself. Jazz wasn't particularly where Greg Osby "came from," and he
tries to meld hip-hop and jazz, but if you ask me, he's much, much better
playing straight jazz.
I guess my overall point is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution
such as "return to black American popular roots." It may work for some,
but as a _mot d'ordre_ I doubt it is very useful.
> in my opinion so called "young lions" won't stay
> an eternity, whereas the techno/house scene has been growing for 10 years now
> and is still expanding.
Hey, the "movement" known as "young lions" has been around longer than
that!
< You probably don't know this musical form very well, but
> it is extremely related to jazz.
Could you explain just how it is extremely related to jazz?
> One more thing, IMO James Brown is as important as Duke Ellington in black
> american music.
Your point being...?
I'm enjoying this discussion! Looking forward to your reply,
- Tom Storer
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <5jr2og$s...@camel3.mindspring.com>,
sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> tst...@natsys.fr wrote:
>
> >In article <5jo9n3$p...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
> > sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
> The people who first PLAYED the music didn't call it jazz or swing
> or bebop, at least not among themselves, or more importantly, TO
> themselves.
But you can be sure they called it something.
> When a thing's TEMPORARY characteristics change, those who are in
> the AUDIENCE change the name. No big deal, until that nomenclature
> comes around and traps young musicians who weren't there when the
> "jazz", "swing", and "bebop" were just "music".
Musicians are also in the audience...
If a musician becomes "trapped" in a rigid set of ideas about what is
authentic, valid or permissible, then the problem is not that a style of
music has a name. It is that the musician is trapped in a rigid set of
ideas, etc. Habits of speech do have some effect on how we think, but we
can't blame them for everything.
Coutier Thierry
John monroe wrote :
> I'm not sure that this vision of popular music does justice to the people
> who make it. It seems a bit condescending to think that rappers, or
> bluesmen, or gypsy violinists are making music simply because their
> "instincts" tell them to. Even if they don't create in the same cultural
> context as more cultivated musicians, their music-making is just as rich
> an intellectual and imaginative activity.
John, it seems you did not like this word "instinctive". In your post you point
out that refering to "instinct" is dangerous because it may be associated with
"primitive", "animal-like creatures"... and you are right. It can be ambiguous.
Of course in my case, it is not, because in my posts it is obvious that my
admiration goes to blues, jazz... but also to hip hop, house music...
By popular music i was just meaning music which isn't academic, and which isn't
learnt in schools. Yourself, you refer to "more cultivated" musicians.
I don't refer at all to a social class scheme like you interpretated it :
> The way you couch it, it seems positive: poor people who make music
> produce more "authentic" art, providing a fund of vital experience for
> those who are better off and wish to profit from that raw vitality.
But it's true that popular music is generally played in low level communities.
Simply because they don't have access to education. That's where comes the
concept of "popular genius". From those apparently low profile communities,
which are dispised by upper level classes, some flowers emerge.
First reactions to these unknown and unseen flowers are generally rejection,
despise, prejudices.
"This is not music, this is crap" they say.
But strangely, this music has got an appeal to some people, those flowers begin
to spread all over the country, even some people from higher society get
interested. Those people start to listen to it, enjoy it, understand it. As
their knowledge has a different form, they start to model this new creation in
their own langage, there are some easy questions "how many chords are there in a
blues", some more difficult "why precisely those chords ?", or "what makes this
swing and this not ?".
And soon the music gets more widely understood and respected. And learnt in
schools, thus getting academic, and used by very knowledged artist as a basis.
And then some new flowers emerge again, and same process occur. i'm not
inventing there, it happened for jazz, for blues, for funk, for hip-hop, for
house, for techno, for jungle, those new music always appeared from the less
privileged category of people in society, and they have proved they are as "Tom
Storer" said it "fertile". That's why I was talking about the "popular folks
genius". Because it gives extremely valuable art.
Notre de Dame de Paris is the perfect example for popular genius. African art
inspired Picasso. Naive Haitian paintings are exposed in museums, urban
graffities too...
And inside this kind of collective creation, yes some artists of the highest
caliber can emerge, you cited Robert Johnson and you are right. In house music i
could say Larry Hear aka Mr Fingers.
> However, I think it's doing a disservice to the genius of the Black creators
> and developers of Jazz to argue that the musical form they invented is *only*
> a vehicle for Black experience.
Yes, but I was just wondering how you can define jazz. INO, it's got to be
related in a way or another, to a black american expression. That's the least we
can do. So it's not very restrictive. The point was that as hip-hop and House
music REALLY have their roots in blues and gospel, it's really legitimate that
their artists can say they are part of this big family called jazz. I've never
said that i wanted to exclude other musics from jazz. Jazz has always fusioned
with many other genres.
> And who's to say that in the twenty-first century, Jazz can't go in a million
> > directions at once?
Completement d'accord. Just want to make sure not to exclude hip-hop and House.
Thierry.
sabutin
tst...@natsys.fr wrote:
>In article <5jr2og$s...@camel3.mindspring.com>,
> sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>> tst...@natsys.fr wrote:
>>
>> >In article <5jo9n3$p...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
>> > sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> [SNIP]
>> The people who first PLAYED the music didn't call it jazz or swing
>> or bebop, at least not among themselves, or more importantly, TO
>> themselves.
>But you can be sure they called it something.
=================================
Yeah, they vcalled it something. They said..." Let's go play, I'm
going up to Minton's to play. let's play the next set, I got a
rehearsal at Birdland, there's a session at Knepper's basement" etc...
I have NEVER, except in a sarcastic, ironic or rueful tone, EVER
heard a musician who can really play refer to the music as "Let's go
play some bebop!!" or "salsa", or "free music...those are terms used
by , to and for non-musicians. It's just "music".
=============================
>> When a thing's TEMPORARY characteristics change, those who are in
>> the AUDIENCE change the name. No big deal, until that nomenclature
>> comes around and traps young musicians who weren't there when the
>> "jazz", "swing", and "bebop" were just "music".
>Musicians are also in the audience...
============================
True, and they're hearing W/OUT labels, if they're into anything at
all.
=========================
>If a musician becomes "trapped" in a rigid set of ideas about what is
>authentic, valid or permissible, then the problem is not that a style of
>music has a name. It is that the musician is trapped in a rigid set of
>ideas, etc. Habits of speech do have some effect on how we think, but we
>can't blame them for everything.
====================
Agreed.
It's the SOME effect to which I am referring.
S.
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <5k24o4$l...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> They said..." Let's go play, I'm
> going up to Minton's to play. let's play the next set, I got a
> rehearsal at Birdland, there's a session at Knepper's basement" etc...
>
> I have NEVER, except in a sarcastic, ironic or rueful tone, EVER
> heard a musician who can really play refer to the music as "Let's go
> play some bebop!!" or "salsa", or "free music...those are terms used
> by , to and for non-musicians. It's just "music".
Pshaw. Let's skip over the fact that musicians "who can really play" are
not the only ones out there.
Two guys get stuck in an elevator together. One of them has a guitar case
with him.
First guy: "I see you have a guitar there. I play guitar, too."
Second guy: "Really? Cool. What are you into?"
First guy: "Music."
Second guy: "Hey, me too! What a coincidence!"
Same scenario, with two cellists.
First guy: "A fellow cellist! What a coincidence!"
Second guy: "Yeah, I've been busting my ass trying to master [names cello
piece]."
First guy: "Oh, I wouldn't know anything about that. I play an entirely
different repertoire."
Second guy: "Think of that. What sort of thing do you play?"
First guy: "Music."
Second guy: "Oh, that explains it."
At my local public library, there are frequently messages up on the
bulletin board next to the CD collection that say "Group seeks
pianist/guitarist/saxophonist/whatever." These ads almost always specify
a style of music, whether rock, fusion, bebop, African, etc., or
sometimes more than one. But I guess none of these people can really
play.
> they're hearing W/OUT labels, if they're into anything at
> all.
I don't know what you mean by "hearing without labels." If you mean
listening without worrying if the music fits some pre-existing criteria
of style, OK. That's how I try to listen. But if I were to go see Benny
Golson and someone asked me what I'd gone to see, I'd say "a jazz
concert." If some ignorant person asked Benny Golson what kind of music
he played, would he say, "Oh, just music"? Maybe. But I wouldn't be
surprised if he said, "I'm a jazz musician."
> =========================
> >If a musician becomes "trapped" in a rigid set of ideas about what is
> >authentic, valid or permissible, then the problem is not that a style of
> >music has a name. It is that the musician is trapped in a rigid set of
> >ideas, etc. Habits of speech do have some effect on how we think, but we
> >can't blame them for everything.
> ====================
> Agreed.
>
> It's the SOME effect to which I am referring.
>
I guess we've thrashed this out as far as it will go! Now we'll have to
figure out how to label this conversation. <g>
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <5k24o4$l...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> They said..." Let's go play, I'm
> going up to Minton's to play. let's play the next set, I got a
> rehearsal at Birdland, there's a session at Knepper's basement" etc...
>
> I have NEVER, except in a sarcastic, ironic or rueful tone, EVER
> heard a musician who can really play refer to the music as "Let's go
> play some bebop!!" or "salsa", or "free music...those are terms used
> by , to and for non-musicians. It's just "music".
Pshaw. Let's skip over the fact that musicians "who can really play" are
not the only ones out there.
Two guys get stuck in an elevator together. One of them has a guitar case
with him.
First guy: "I see you have a guitar there. I play guitar, too."
Second guy: "Really? Cool. What are you into?"
First guy: "Music."
Second guy: "Hey, me too! What a coincidence!"
Same scenario, with two cellists.
First guy: "A fellow cellist! What a coincidence!"
Second guy: "Yeah, I've been busting my ass trying to master [names cello
piece]."
First guy: "Oh, I wouldn't know anything about that. I play an entirely
different repertoire."
Second guy: "Think of that. What do you like to play?"
First guy: "Music."
I guess we've taken this conversation as far as it will go! But was it
really a "conversation" or more of a "debate"? Perhaps a "dialogue."
Goodness, how will I judge it? <g>
Doug Wamble
Coutier Thierry wrote:
> The 4 on the floor rythm often turns into a ternary rythm. House producers often
> call or are jazz instrumentists, nice flutes, lots of free atonal sax
> improvisations...
Hmmm...
> Spirituality : House makes you feel Deep. Deep, jazzy piano chords, pumping
> soulful rythms, echoes of voices from the deep, acidic sounds to blow your mind
> like a Coltrane solo... to make you communicate and share your emotions on the
> Dancefloor.
House music keeps a bunch of baggy clothed people moving while
they ingest large quantities of ecstasy. And I think that's fine!
But comparing that barrage of sound, which in itself is very
interesting to some, to Trane? A man who dedicated himself to
producing music of a higher level than most realize? A man who
understood the importance of group playing and swinging?
Sorry, that doesn't hold up.
> Improvisation : work of the Dj in interaction with the crowd. Some Dj's use 3
> turntables at the same time. Sometimes there are 2 Dj's for duets and battles.
DJ's are cool and they have a skill, but please...
> Innovation : remember those people who used washing tools to make rythm, bottle
> neck to play guitar ? House musicians are in the same tradition : they have
> changed utilisation of all the cheap rythm box, TB 303... they have found.
Things which take little skill to use. Jazz music requires much
more skill and dedication. It is the struggle to acheive that skill
which adds to the spiritual element of jazz music.
Doug Wamble
I don't think it's a bad thing to say "I'm a jazz musician".
I don't understand why people seem to think that's narrow
of someone to specify the music they play. I for one, am
proud that I can play jazz, and I wouldn't want someone to
hear that I'm a musician and assume I play crappy music.
John Monroe
On 28 Apr 1997, Coutier Thierry wrote:
> John, it seems you did not like this word "instinctive". In your post you point
> out that refering to "instinct" is dangerous because it may be associated with
> "primitive", "animal-like creatures"... and you are right. It can be ambiguous.
> Of course in my case, it is not, because in my posts it is obvious that my
> admiration goes to blues, jazz... but also to hip hop, house music...
This assertion doesn't do much to allay my suspicions about the word
"instinctive." I don't quite see how the term can be ambiguous. When
you use "instinctive" as a descriptive term, it seems like you intend it
to refer to that music which is created at some kind of primordial,
pre-linguistic level (that comes "from the heart," so to speak).
Implicitly, you oppose it to a type of music which is created as an
intellectual product, from the "head" rather than from the "heart."
I'm suspicious of this kind of argument, because in the United States it
has been used for years to exclude members of the lower class (who we
tend to think of as being primarily Black, for a variety of complex and
unpleasant reasons). It becomes "safe" to grant a certain level of
artistic ability to marginalized people, provided one maintains that the
nature of their gift is somehow less "elevated" than the gifts which those
in the center possess.
Those who are in power assert their power by arguing that they have a
monopoly on "intellectual production"; those who are not in power are
excluded by having their "intellectual production" labeled
"instinctual spontaneity."
Admiring both Jazz--which for you, I think, is more "intellectual"--and
hip-hop does not eliminate the problem. It's possible to admire folk
music tremendously and still fall into the same trap, by viewing folk art
as something _essentially_ different from "intellectual" art. Making
that distinction is dangerous, because it draws a line which should not be
drawn. Really, folk artists and "intellectual" artists are both doing the
same thing, just in different cultural contexts.
> By popular music i was just meaning music which isn't academic, and which isn't
> learnt in schools. Yourself, you refer to "more cultivated" musicians.
> I don't refer at all to a social class scheme like you interpretated it.
You don't refer to a social class scheme, but I found such a view to be
clearly implied by your statements. After all, it's extremely difficult
to separate the concept of "folk music" from the concept of "music made by
those who have fewer privileges," particularly when one talks about "urban
folk." It's not rich kids, after all, who are inventing this music, it's
poor ones, and that's a generally-acknowledged fact.
> But it's true that popular music is generally played in low level communities.
> Simply because they don't have access to education. That's where comes the
> concept of "popular genius". From those apparently low profile communities,
> which are dispised by upper level classes, some flowers emerge.
I agree with you here, in part, but I'll ask: why consider a "popular
genius" to be something different from an "educated genius"? Both are
people gifted with extraordinary intelligence, using that intelligence to
create with the materials around them. It's just the materials that are
different, not the nature of the ability.
> Yes, but I was just wondering how you can define jazz. INO, it's got to be
> related in a way or another, to a black american expression. That's the
> least we can do. So it's not very restrictive.
Trying to define Jazz, as is clear from other posts on this NG, can be
like trying to nail jell-o to the wall. Every time you think you have it,
some exception comes along to throw everything out of whack. Unless you
keep the terms very imprecise, that is. If you consider the most basic
elements of Jazz--like solo improvisation and accompaniment, or collective
improvisation, or communication of emotion--to be "Black American
expression," then I agree with your definition. I agree, anyway, as long
as it's also acknowledged that such expression, though its origins are
clearly Black, is a generally human, not race or class bound, concern.
LeRoi Jones (Amiri Baraka) makes this point quite beautifully in the
introduction to his book "Blues People."
But does the "Black connection" need to be as explicit as using
say, Funk samples, or traditional Blues forms? I, for one, don't think
so. The music of Lennie Tristano, for example, very rarely uses these
explicitly "Black folk" materials, but is unquestionably Jazz. At the
same time, Tristano couldn't have made his music at all if it weren't for
Black innovators--but what those innovators developed was more than a
simple "instinctive" expression of their own experience; it was an
expression of their own experience made the basis of a broader form, one
so rich that it has become infinitely adaptable.
John Monroe.
Dr. Don Koldon
> I have NEVER, except in a sarcastic, ironic or rueful tone, EVER
> heard a musician who can really play refer to the music as "Let's go
> play some bebop!!" or "salsa", or "free music...those are terms used
> by , to and for non-musicians. It's just "music".
This is one of the most bizarre statements ever seen on rmb ... which is
some sort of accomplishment. Do you really know "musicians who can really
play" who never describe music in specific terms? Do local laws prohibit
the use of terms like "bebop, hard bop, blues, salsa, free, soul," etc.
unless spoken in a sarcastic, ironic or rueful tone?
I'm trying to figure out other reasons why you've never "heard a musician
who can really play" use the laundry list of descriptive musicial terms
(labels, if you insist) commonly used by musicians who can really play,
hardly play, sorta play, can't play or shouldn't ever try to play.
I'm stumped ... anybody else got some theories?
--
DK
jb...@in219b.iit.edu
> =================================
> Yeah, they vcalled it something. They said..." Let's go play, I'm
> going up to Minton's to play. let's play the next set, I got a
> rehearsal at Birdland, there's a session at Knepper's basement" etc...
>
> I have NEVER, except in a sarcastic, ironic or rueful tone, EVER
> heard a musician who can really play refer to the music as "Let's go
> play some bebop!!" or "salsa", or "free music...those are terms used
> by , to and for non-musicians. It's just "music".
But what if you are on the bandstand, and you want to play Naima, and
do it as a bossa-nova. What are you going to say then?
Coutier Thierry
Tom Storer wrote :
> coutier thierry wrote :
>> [SNIP] jazz during the century often mutated according to what was
>> happening in popular music
> Did it? Jazz easily ingested the influence of blues; then during the
> swing era, jazz *was* popular music. What mutations followed?
> Did bebop espouse happenings in popular music? Hardly.
I don't agree. I have read an interview of Allen Ginsberg. He was saying that
Jack Kerouac used to hang around with bird manager. This guy told Jack Kerouac
that Charlie Parker inspiration in its phrases was the black langage. Kerouac
tried to put Bird sax phrases into written words, and rap has made an art from
Slang.
> Hard bop" was a movement towards funkier, churchier sounds, but I don't think
> > this was a reaction to what was happening in popular music.
No, but it's clearly a return to the source.
> Free jazz, modal jazz, the 60's modernists... did these styles delve deep into
> > the popular music of the time?
Not of their time but to forgotten jazz aspects : collective improvisation,
Albert Ayler loved March and was probably inspired by New Orleans marching
bands, he liked La Marseillaise too, which is our folklore. Modal jazz was a
return to the melody, what about Miles interpretation of "Someday my prince will
come" ? Coltrane was probably inspired by Illinois Jacquet who played out, in
the seventies Free jazz players took funk rythm...
That makes me think, that jazz artists are not the only ones who have expored
folklores. Satie incorporated ragtime, Stravisky early jazz, Darius Millau used
Samba, Debussy javanese music, i think about Hermeto Pascoal too who have a
great inspiration in Nordeste melodies, Bartok and hungarian music, Astor
Piazzolla with tango...it never stops.
> I see jazz musicians as being very open to outside influences, whether
> from popular music, classical music, ethnic musics or whatever sounds
> interesting.
Yes, but what makes it call Jazz ?
> Should a Japanese drummer, a French accordeonist, a Norwegian guitarist, a
> South African pianist, an Argentinian saxophonist, etc. etc., not to mention
> > white American musicians, all of whom play jazz in one flavor or another,
> wake > up in the morning and say to themselves, "Today I will contribute to
> black
> American expression?"
No they are free of course, but what makes it call jazz ?
> I once spoke to a great (black) jazz singer
Who was she Ella ?
> If you think hip-hop and techno would be good in the mix, fine, but the origin
> > of "folk" sources needn't limit who can or should use them well. Jazz is a
> cosmopolitan music if ever there was one.
It has evolved so much. Nonetheless, i think that if you consider yourself
playing jazz, you must know at least where it comes from : Blues, spirituals,
cotton fields. Does it sound too much cliche for you ?
> The great achievement of the creators of jazz is that their music proved
> to be so strongly expressive that it is universal.
Music as a universal langage ? Hum, that's another point. No langage is
universal, you always need to learn it first to understand it.
> Presumably if they went to the trouble to learn it in music schools, it's
> something they like and want to pursue.
They probably want to pursue a career too. And they that if they please "daddy
Wynton", they will please "mother major" too. I'm too excessive here, but does
those school learn them to open their ears and their minds ?
> Again, I don't see that there's any logical *necessity* to "play where you are
> > coming from"
Music should be expressing something about yourself. If it's part of yourself,
it is part of your history. That's why i was saying you must know "where you are
coming from".
Playing "where you are coming from", is playing what you are, to make it less
abstract and more emotionally involved. Because you need to feel it. (btw, one
of the greatest House song is called "can you feel it".
>> You probably don't know this musical form very well, but
>> it is extremely related to jazz.
> Could you explain just how it is extremely related to jazz?
House's expression is pure gospel. Same kind of devotion, same kind of extatic
scream for love, same kind of spirituality. A lot of house singers come from
gospel choir. If you can hear kerry Chandler and Arnold Jarvis's "Inspiration",
you will know what I mean.
House was created in Chicago. A lot of its innovators were related to jazz in
some ways. Ce Ce Rogers began to sing at 3 years old, accompanied James Brown at
11, did the Berklee School in piano and singing. Lil'Louis is the son of one of
the musician of BB King. His heroes He had a great song called "Freedom" 2 years
ago. Larry heard was a jazz drummer...
The 4 on the floor rythm often turns into a ternary rythm. House producers often
call or are jazz instrumentists, nice flutes, lots of free atonal sax
improvisations...
Spirituality : House makes you feel Deep. Deep, jazzy piano chords, pumping
soulful rythms, echoes of voices from the deep, acidic sounds to blow your mind
like a Coltrane solo... to make you communicate and share your emotions on the
Dancefloor.
Improvisation : work of the Dj in interaction with the crowd. Some Dj's use 3
turntables at the same time. Sometimes there are 2 Dj's for duets and battles.
Innovation : remember those people who used washing tools to make rythm, bottle
neck to play guitar ? House musicians are in the same tradition : they have
changed utilisation of all the cheap rythm box, TB 303... they have found.
Thierry.
Dr. Don Koldon
In article <5k2tgi$m...@camel4.mindspring.com>, sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
> sab...@mindspring.com (sabutin) wrote:
> Too many typos, not enough time...here it is again, only better...
> =============
>
> You think that's bizarre?? I don't. I think it's true, w/in my own
> experience. I should have included "among other musicians" in the
> statement, but it's true nonetheless...the better the musicians are,
> the less they use words to describe their music.
Perhaps we just have had very different experiences. I haven't noticed a
major reduction in the use of descriptive terms among more
skilled/experienced musicians. True, they may have a greater level of
understanding/shared knowledge & experience - especially if they've played
together extensively - but they still seem to use "words" from time to
time.
> People don't say "I want a salsa feel here."
> if they really know what a "salsa" feel (whatever THAT
> means) is...they say "This is the clave; here's the bass line; play
> around this piano part... you got it?"...and count off. Same for
> "swing", "bebop". etc.
That doesn't match my experience. I've heard some pretty sophisticated
musicians say exactly that, i.e. "I want a salsa feel here." And, I'm not
just talking about "studio cats" doing quick & dirty musical shorthand on
a ad jingle or soundtrack date. Regardless of your personal musical
preferences, wouldn't you call Bobby Hutcherson, Jimmy Heath, George
Cables, Freddie Hubbard, Claus Ogerman, Richard Davis, Chick Corea, and
Cedar Walton good musicians? These are some people I've heard using
words/labels to communicate with other musicians in the recording studio.
There's lots more.
If you're trying to say that some musicians prefer to just demonstrate the
part and take it from there, okay - that happens too. But to imply that
the better a musician is, the less he/she uses words/labels to communicate
musical concepts seems like a massive overgeneralization.
> Do you really think Monk said to Dizzy "Here's a little bebop tune
> I just wrote" and then played him Misterioso? Naaaahhhhhhh.....
I love Monk, I really do, but he's one of the last people I would use as
an example of a generalized theory of communication among musicians. He
was nothing if not idiosyncratic. But, I'd love to hear how he described
"Misterioso" to Dizzy or anyone else. :-)
--
DK
erasmus
uh, high altitudes can have detrimental effects on the head, and the head
of your horse.
ryan
erasmus
In article <3364D5...@nwu.edu>, Doug Wamble <Swin...@nwu.edu> writes:
> Coutier Thierry wrote:
>> The 4 on the floor rythm often turns into a ternary rythm. House producers often
>> call or are jazz instrumentists, nice flutes, lots of free atonal sax
>> improvisations...
>
>
>> Spirituality : House makes you feel Deep. Deep, jazzy piano chords, pumping
>> soulful rythms, echoes of voices from the deep, acidic sounds to blow your mind
>> like a Coltrane solo... to make you communicate and share your emotions on the
>> Dancefloor.
>
> they ingest large quantities of ecstasy. And I think that's fine!
hold up dougy doug. huge generalization, not well thought out. i could
say the same about jazz musicians and their use of ilicit drugs, i.e.
heroine. if i recall, coltrane was a junkie at one point. so were many
others. moot point.
> But comparing that barrage of sound, which in itself is very
> interesting to some, to Trane? A man who dedicated himself to
> producing music of a higher level than most realize? A man who
> understood the importance of group playing and swinging?
> Sorry, that doesn't hold up.
your argument doesn't hold up. his music was created on his higher level.
he wasn't creating music to impress anyone. he strove to achieve his
best. house music artists could be doing the same. furthermore, they to
understand group playing. when a house artists overlays the correct
sounds and inserts the peoper rythmn, the moment of realization can be
just as satisfying as when miles blows his horn.
>> Improvisation : work of the Dj in interaction with the crowd. Some Dj's use 3
>> turntables at the same time. Sometimes there are 2 Dj's for duets and battles.
>
> DJ's are cool and they have a skill, but please...
>
it's about sound, what sounds good, what sounds bad, what works and
doesn't work. dj's have to figure that out just like jazz musicians.
granted, jazz musicians create the music themselves and dj's use already
created music. however, i somethimes think that it can be more difficult
to create a work of art out of physical pre-exiting tangibles. by your
logic, are you going to say that photography is nothing compared to
paining? i think not.
>> Innovation : remember those people who used washing tools to make rythm, bottle
>> neck to play guitar ? House musicians are in the same tradition : they have
>> changed utilisation of all the cheap rythm box, TB 303... they have found.
>
> Things which take little skill to use. Jazz music requires much
> more skill and dedication. It is the struggle to acheive that skill
> which adds to the spiritual element of jazz music.
i agree with you here. but when you make this statement you are taking
the argument into another realm. which is more spiritual is inherently
subjective (almost like this whole argument.)
ryan
sabutin
tst...@natsys.fr wrote:
>In article <5k24o4$l...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
> sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>> They said..." Let's go play, I'm
>> going up to Minton's to play. let's play the next set, I got a
>> rehearsal at Birdland, there's a session at Knepper's basement" etc...
>>
>> I have NEVER, except in a sarcastic, ironic or rueful tone, EVER
>> heard a musician who can really play refer to the music as "Let's go
>> play some bebop!!" or "salsa", or "free music...those are terms used
>> by , to and for non-musicians. It's just "music".
>Pshaw. Let's skip over the fact that musicians "who can really play" are
>not the only ones out there.
>Two guys get stuck in an elevator together. One of them has a guitar case
>with him.
>First guy: "I see you have a guitar there. I play guitar, too."
>Second guy: "Really? Cool. What are you into?"
>First guy: "Music."
==========================
Great answer.
=========================
===snip===
>Same scenario, with two cellists.
>First guy: "A fellow cellist! What a coincidence!"
>Second guy: "Yeah, I've been busting my ass trying to master [names cello
>piece]."
>First guy: "Oh, I wouldn't know anything about that. I play an entirely
>different repertoire."
>Second guy: "Think of that. What do you like to play?"
>First guy: "Music."
========================
Terrible answer. Once you've established some sort of
limitations...which we ALL have...then you MUST define them. But a
really good musician doesn't necessarily LIVE w/in those outside
definitions. Thus...
Better answer..".Oh, I play Bach through Stravinsky, mainly..."
Or...I mostly play at the Knitting Factory w/an electric drummer,
two congeros and a harpsichordist who doubles on tenor."
Or...I'm in the backup band, on tour w/the Stones..
Or....
---snip---
=========================
>> they're hearing W/OUT labels, if they're into anything at
>> all.
>I don't know what you mean by "hearing without labels."
==============================
I mean hearing without words, without categories, as much as
possible. W/OUT "judging", except in the broadest possible terms of "I
like this>" or "I don't like this." (This allows you to compare apples
and oranges, by the way. This apple pleases me; this orange does not.
This music that lives somewhere in this idiom pleases me; this other
music that lives somewhere else entirely does not. FREE of labels,
FREE of idiomatic preferences.)
===========================
>If you mean
>listening without worrying if the music fits some pre-existing criteria
>of style, OK. That's how I try to listen. But if I were to go see Benny
>Golson and someone asked me what I'd gone to see, I'd say "a jazz
>concert." If some ignorant person asked Benny Golson what kind of music
>he played, would he say, "Oh, just music"? Maybe. But I wouldn't be
>surprised if he said, "I'm a jazz musician."
=================
I guess all of this depends on the people in the dialogue. If I
KNEW that the other person knew NOTHING at all about music, I (and
Benny too, I think) might say something about "jazz". If they knew a
little more, I might say something about the generation immediately
around and after Bird. If they knew even more, I'd probably just say
Benny Golson, or more specifically, if it applied, music from Benny's
Jazztet (there's that word again!!!) era. (Parenthetically, I'll bet
money that the people IN the Jazztet didn't refer to it among [or
w/in] themselves as "The Jazztet".)
>> =========================
>> >If a musician becomes "trapped" in a rigid set of ideas about what is
>> >authentic, valid or permissible, then the problem is not that a style of
>> >music has a name. It is that the musician is trapped in a rigid set of
>> >ideas, etc. Habits of speech do have some effect on how we think, but we
>> >can't blame them for everything.
>> ====================
>> Agreed.
>>
>> It's the SOME effect to which I am referring.
>>
>I guess we've taken this conversation as far as it will go! But was it
>really a "conversation" or more of a "debate"? Perhaps a "dialogue."
>Goodness, how will I judge it? <g>
=========================
Duet.
And don't TRY to "judge" it.
Just play it.
S.
>- Tom Storer
Doug Wamble
erasmus wrote:
> your argument doesn't hold up. his music was created on his higher level.
> he wasn't creating music to impress anyone. he strove to achieve his
> best. house music artists could be doing the same. furthermore, they to
> understand group playing. when a house artists overlays the correct
> sounds and inserts the peoper rythmn, the moment of realization can be
> just as satisfying as when miles blows his horn.
>
Group interaction is NOT the same thing as pleasing the crowd.
I never said Trane was out to impress. But it was his dedication
to a high level of music that made him so great. House music does
not take the same level of personal practice and dedication to
create. I'm sorry if this is politically incorrect, but I refuse
to demean a great American art form like jazz music by saying
that it is on the same musical level as that house stuff.
sabutin
kold...@mail.idt.net (Dr. Don Koldon) wrote:
>In article <5k24o4$l...@camel2.mindspring.com>, sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> I have NEVER, except in a sarcastic, ironic or rueful tone, EVER
>> heard a musician who can really play refer to the music as "Let's go
>> play some bebop!!" or "salsa", or "free music...those are terms used
>> by , to and for non-musicians. It's just "music".
>This is one of the most bizarre statements ever seen on rmb ... which is
>some sort of accomplishment. Do you really know "musicians who can really
>play" who never describe music in specific terms? Do local laws prohibit
>the use of terms like "bebop, hard bop, blues, salsa, free, soul," etc.
>unless spoken in a sarcastic, ironic or rueful tone?
>I'm trying to figure out other reasons why you've never "heard a musician
>who can really play" use the laundry list of descriptive musicial terms
>(labels, if you insist) commonly used by musicians who can really play,
>hardly play, sorta play, can't play or shouldn't ever try to play.
>I'm stumped ... anybody else got some theories?
>--
>DK
=======================
It's true...I should have included "among other musicians" in the
statement, but it's true nonetheless...thebetter the musicians are,
the less they use words to describe their music. If Sonny Roillins
wants a certain feel at a certain place, he PLAYS it, or dances it, it
writes it. People don't say "I want a salsa feel here." if theye
really know what a "salsa" feel (whatever THAT means) is...they say
here's the clave, here's the bass line, play this piano part; you got
it?...and count off.
And "bebop", "swing", "free jazz", etc. are NOT "specific terms",
they're terms made up by people who don't know any more specific way
of communivcating what they're trying to say. And damned NON-specific
at that.
S.
Marc Sabatella
>Music as a universal langage ? Hum, that's another point. No langage is
>universal, you always need to learn it first to understand it.
I haven't been following this thread closely, but have been reminded in
several different ways recently that this idea of musical being a
"universal language" is bogus. If it weren't, we'd all have the the
same musical tastes. As it is, Cecil Taylor speaks to me, but not to
Doug Wamble. Or Bill Evans speaks to me, but not Cecil. Kenny G does
not speak to me at all, yet he obviously does to millions of others.
How did things come to be this way? Who knows how much of this
be innate (something that has little analogue in verbal language), but
most "evidence" I've seen suggests it is largely cultural /
environmental, just as verbal language. In fact, in almost any way I
can think of, the situation is exactly like verbal language - you can
pretty neatly partition people up according to which musical languages
they can speak or understand, and members of one group have trouble
communicating (musicaly) with members of another. Of course, there are
multilingual musicians and listeners, just as there are with spoken
language.
--
Marc Sabatella
--
ma...@outsideshore.com
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Doug Wamble
My point was that if all you say is, "I'm a musician",
people could assume a lot of wrong things about you.
But specifying that I play jazz could also yield
misconceptions. They might think I play Kenny G stuff.
All I'm saying is that I'm sick of people saying,
"Don't categorize me! I'm a MUSICIAN!!!"
Personally, I have worked too hard on becoming a
musicianto be classified with cats like Kurt Cobain,
who could barely even play the guitar.
sabutin
sab...@mindspring.com (sabutin) wrote:
Too many typos, not enough time...here it is again, only better...
=============
>>In article <5k24o4$l...@camel2.mindspring.com>, sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>> I have NEVER, except in a sarcastic, ironic or rueful tone, EVER
>>> heard a musician who can really play refer to the music as "Let's go
>>> play some bebop!!" or "salsa", or "free music...those are terms used
>>> by , to and for non-musicians. It's just "music".
>>This is one of the most bizarre statements ever seen on rmb ... which is
>>some sort of accomplishment. Do you really know "musicians who can really
>>play" who never describe music in specific terms? Do local laws prohibit
>>the use of terms like "bebop, hard bop, blues, salsa, free, soul," etc.
>>unless spoken in a sarcastic, ironic or rueful tone?
>>I'm trying to figure out other reasons why you've never "heard a musician
>>who can really play" use the laundry list of descriptive musicial terms
>>(labels, if you insist) commonly used by musicians who can really play,
>>hardly play, sorta play, can't play or shouldn't ever try to play.
>>I'm stumped ... anybody else got some theories?
>>--
>>DK
>=======================
You think that's bizarre?? I don't. I think it's true, w/in my own
experience. I should have included "among other musicians" in the
statement, but it's true nonetheless...the better the musicians are,
the less they use words to describe their music. If Sonny Roillins
wants a certain feel at a certain place, he PLAYS it, or dances it, or
sings it, or writes it. People don't say "I want a salsa feel here."
if they really know what a "salsa" feel (whatever THAT
means) is...they say "This is the clave; here's the bass line; play
around this piano part... you got it?"...and count off. Same for
"swing", "bebop". etc.
Do you really think Monk said to Dizzy "Here's a little bebop tune
I just wrote" and then played him Misterioso? Naaaahhhhhhh.....
(By the way, "bebop", "swing", "free jazz", etc. are NOT "specific
terms", they're terms made up by people who don't know any more
specific way of communicating what they're trying to say. And they're
damned NON-specific at that. Nothing intrinsically wrong w/them,
except when they begin to substitute for the real music in people's
minds, which appears to me to be happening a great deal these days.)
S.
Brian Rost
In article <Pine.GSO.3.94.970428...@mercury.cis.yale.edu>, John Monroe <jmo...@pantheon.yale.edu> writes:
|> Admiring both Jazz--which for you, I think, is more "intellectual"--and
|> hip-hop does not eliminate the problem. It's possible to admire folk
|> music tremendously and still fall into the same trap, by viewing folk art
|> as something _essentially_ different from "intellectual" art. Making
|> that distinction is dangerous, because it draws a line which should not be
|> drawn. Really, folk artists and "intellectual" artists are both doing the
|> same thing, just in different cultural contexts.
One thing we tend to forget in this day and age is that a lot of what we
think of as "folk music" is stuff that's created by professional musicians.
As much as we might like to think that a guy like Doc Watson is just an "aw
shucks" guy from the hills doing something he learned at his daddy's knee,
etc. the fact is that this guy when "discovered" was playing electric guitar
in a dance band, doing rock, swing, blues, etc.
I would venture to say that "real" folk music is not what we hear in concerts
and on recordings (excepting field recordings), so the "authenticity" of such
music is sort of an artistic conceit.
As for the general thread, I've been reading "Poetics of Music" by Igor Stravinsky
lately and he talks a lot about the misconceptions of how music is created. It's
pretty heady stuff, but he talks about some of the same issues that are being
bandied about here.
--
Brian Rost
3Com Corp.
508-264-1550
br...@synnet.com
*********************************************************************
Monkey Island: a dance band for the new millenium
*********************************************************************
sabutin
jb...@in219b.iit.edu wrote:
>In article <5k24o4$l...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
> sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> =================================
>> Yeah, they vcalled it something. They said..." Let's go play, I'm
>> going up to Minton's to play. let's play the next set, I got a
>> rehearsal at Birdland, there's a session at Knepper's basement" etc...
>>
>> I have NEVER, except in a sarcastic, ironic or rueful tone, EVER
>> heard a musician who can really play refer to the music as "Let's go
>> play some bebop!!" or "salsa", or "free music...those are terms used
>> by , to and for non-musicians. It's just "music".
>But what if you are on the bandstand, and you want to play Naima, and
>do it as a bossa-nova. What are you going to say then?
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
===============================================
I don't WANT "them" to it as a "bossa nova".
What IS a "bossa-nova"? WHICH subdivision of the thousand and one
samba feels do you mean? Is it a "bossa nova" because the last beat of
the clave is displaced 1/2 a beat? Why not use a drum machine and be
done with it?
WHICH "bossa nova"? Jobim's? Getz's? Raoul DeSouza's? Dizzy's? Is
it a "bossa nova" timbrally? Is it in Portugese? Can a tuba play the
melody? Loud? No? Must there be an acoustic guitar? A light-toned sax
or female singer? No?Then is it or isn't it a "bossa nova"? Are the
tired club daters on the fourth set playing a 'bossa nova'"? Yes?
Then that's what I DON'T want to play. Is Jobim playing a "bossa
nova". Baden Powell? Then that's more like it. Now it's REALLY getting
confusing. Why use the word, if it means radically different things to
many great players?
I might write/sing/dance/play an arrangement/rhythm feel/bass
line/piano approach that YOU might call a bossa nova (although I'd
much rather let the players find their way in as much as possible
W/OUT laying restrictions on them...) but if you get the right
musicians, you don't have to say much anyway, and if you DON'T have
the right musicians, it doesn't much matter WHAT you say.
Get a bunch of great musicians on a stage; play Naima. If it comes
out something you call a bossa nova, fine. If it sounds more like
James Brown meets 'Trane meets Machito, equally OK. As soon as it
starts to be identifiable in a pat, "Now THAT'S a bossa nova!!" kind
of way, it's already at least half dead.
S.
Tom Waters
sabutin (sab...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: The people who first PLAYED the music didn't call it jazz or swing
: or bebop, at least not among themselves, or more importantly, TO
: themselves.
I think that sometimes people played jazz when they were intending to
play jazz, sometimes they played jazz without intending to, and sometimes
they meant to play jazz but ended up playing something else...
My point is that the evolution of this strand of music has often been
shaped by the names used to describe it -- and sometimes for the good of
the music too, not just the ill -- even though there is definitely much
more there than what is in those words.
For example, Count Basie in his very wonderful autobiography describes a
rich early career in music without ever using the word jazz -- even
though it is likely that listeners today would categorize some of what he
was playign as jazz. But then, at a certain point, Basie decided that he
was a jazz musician and starts to use the word. This was a transition in
the music he was creating too. When he decided that he was a jazz
musician, that made a difference in what he was playing. I'd love to hear
a little bit of what he was doing before. (Perhaps people can recommend
recordings that they think sound something like what the yound Basie was
playing.) But I doubt anyone would say that Basie's music turned false
when he begab identifying as a jazz musician.
Tom
--
Thomas Waters
twa...@use.usit.net
1021 East Oak Hill Avenue, Knoxville TN 37917
Dig And Be Dug In Return
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <5k1t3d$130k$1...@cemef.cma.fr>,
cou...@cenerg.cma.fr (Coutier Thierry) wrote:
>
[SNIP]
> But it's true that popular music is generally played in low level communities.
> Simply because they don't have access to education.
This isn't necessarily true. Popular music is played by just about
everyone... after all, it's popular. Untold thousands of middle-class and
frankly affluent teenagers drive their neighbors to distraction by
playing rock or hip-hop in the garage or basement, without benefit of
musical training.
Rap and hip-hop were created, it's true, in poor communities, but they're
hugely popular and, like rock, kids at all levels of society aspire to
perform them and do. Nor can we say that it is necessarily the poorest
among them who will go on to make the best music.
What I think you're getting at is that kids whose parents have more dough
can afford to buy them a violin and pay for music lessons, while poor
kids don't have that option as easily. True. However, many people without
much in the way of material resources do manage, through sacrifice and
effort, to provide education for their children, in the arts as in other
things.
There is a vast and growing gap between the richest and the poorest, but,
especially in terms of things cultural, it's inaccurate to imagine
society as divided neatly into Rich and Poor, with hermetic barriers
between them, the po' folks creating rich and vibrantly authentic art
over here (simply because they're poor), and the rich folks over there
unable to do anything but copy them exploitatively (simply because
they're rich). This is what you'd call your "image d'Epinal." Your basic
viewpoint, I think, is compassionate and just, but beware of schemas of
thinking that are overly simplified.
- Tom Storer
sabutin
twa...@use.usit.net (Tom Waters) wrote:
>sabutin (sab...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>Tom
=================================
Again, I find the word "jazz" to be more of a marketing term than a
musical one. Basie started using the word when the music started to be
MARKETED as "jazz". He was IN THE MARKETPLACE, and very good at it,
too.
Basie (and those who played and wrote in his bands) INVENTED much
of the form as they went along (By the way, check out the few Benny
Moten sides, you want to hear an amazingly different Basie...virtuoso
piano, fast + elaborate!!!), and it's a fact of life that audiences
will buy things w/a name much faster than they will something that
can't be categorized...examine this thread, if you doubt that; look
inside yourself as well. The people who INVENT the forms don't NAME
them, they just play them, and then those forms are named, bought and
sold, and even the inventors, as the name gains currency and
dominance, begin to refer to the form they're playing by its popular
(marketing) name.
I find nothing wrong with this...it's what happens one, two, three
generations along the line that I'm referring to here, when the NAME
of the form is damned near all that's left of it, and many musicians
inhabit the empty shells of great forms like hermit crabs, long after
the life and spirit are gone from them.
(I'd like to add that the repertory band phenomenon appears to me
to be something other than this, at its highest levels, more a
REACTION to the empty parroting of styles that results in lame neo-bop
clones and raggedy late 'Trane imitations. In THAT movement, people
are trying to rediscover the MEAT of the music, much as great
Shakespearean actors attempt to discover the real music and meaning in
Shakespeare's words.
Believe me, after several days of rehearsal and performance
covering a range of styles from Benny Moten through Duke and Basie and
Goodman, on into the Afro-Cuban/Dizzy Gillespie stuff, and then
further into Kenton, Gil Evans, and Thad Jones, w/a little bit of
Africa Brass and some of Brookmeyer's outer stuff mixed in, there are
no words left, it's just music.)
S.
Coutier Thierry
Tom Storer wrote :
> Rap and hip-hop were created, it's true, in poor communities, but they're
> hugely popular and, like rock, kids at all levels of society aspire to
> perform them and do. Nor can we say that it is necessarily the poorest
> among them who will go on to make the best music.
You forgot blues and jazz. Did I say that the poorer will make the best music ?
You are interpretating.
> There is a vast and growing gap between the richest and the poorest, but,
> especially in terms of things cultural, it's inaccurate to imagine
> society as divided neatly into Rich and Poor, with hermetic barriers
> between them
Ok, class division is a rough model for society. But in this particular case, we
are studying, communities where blues, jazz, hip-hop, house were created, we are
talking about middle -class categories. We are talking about the poorest among
the poorest. Cotton fields on one hand, urban ghettos on another hand. I see a
net difference between Bronx, or Watts and middle class neighborhoods. In one
case most of people are integrated in society, in the other one, they are
completely rejected. Thus their views on society and their realities, so their
cultures are different.
> the po' folks creating rich and vibrantly authentic art
> over here (simply because they're poor), and the rich folks over there
> unable to do anything but copy them exploitatively (simply because
> they're rich). This is what you'd call your "image d'Epinal."
Poor uncle Tom, once again you are interpretating my divine Lord. I said that
yes those poor communities did created some "rich and vibrant art", i'm only
talking about facts here, that you should know if you listen to jazz, but i'm
beginning to doubt that you really know what jazz is, do you think it was
brought the Mayflower immigrants ?
Btw, do you know why jazz developed in New Orleans ? Because it was the only
place where slaves were allowed to play music ! Slaves were allowed to play
their music only in the French Caraibes. Have a look at your history book, poor
ignorant, you will see it's true.
But i was saying you constantly interpret my words (it seems you read with your
eyes, but understand with your ass), for I've never said that "rich people"
"steal" the "poor" art. I just said, that poor communities generally had to
invent their own expression because they have no access to academic forms which
require education and also because their culture is different.
Then some open-minded people from higher grounds get interested. Do you doubt I
admire the composers I cited who have utilised folklore in their music ? (Darius
Milhau, Debussy, Satie, Stravisky, Hermeto Pascoal...). Let's be serious here.
It seems you are not. Try to read carefully.
Thierry.
PS : Obviously you are interpretating my words because of your prejudices about
the French. Listen to me : the French generally speaking are not so much
obcessed by war class concept, as you seem to believe it, but maybe this kind of
analyses is not so dull after all. Marx ideas are still pertinent sometimes.
Take care.
Coutier Thierry
John Monroe wrote :
> Admiring both Jazz--which for you, I think, is more "intellectual"--and
> hip-hop does not eliminate the problem. It's possible to admire folk
> music tremendously and still fall into the same trap, by viewing folk art
> as something _essentially_ different from "intellectual" art. Making
> that distinction is dangerous, because it draws a line which should not be
> drawn. Really, folk artists and "intellectual" artists are both doing the
> same thing, just in different cultural contexts.
I think that we can draw a line between an instictive art with an intellectual
art until the moment this art begins to be formalised, conceptualised and then
be learnt to somebody. Art is probably instinctive only at the very beginning of
its birth. The first famous rappers were probably the Last Poets. I think Jalal
was one of the first, he begun by rapping his texts while he was playing John
Coltrane records at home. He probably had pleasure in doing that, his neighbors
probably did not notice what he was doing, neither many of his friends, but some
of them must have paid attention. Finding this at least interesting. Then they
do it themselves, found audience and it spreaded largely in the nation. That's
maybe like this that a new art form get born in popular culture context in
contrast to academic world, which can also produce new things.
Then after innovators of the genre, it gets codified, like Corrida is a codified
art form for instance, and people explore this form deeper, and go on mutating
it. That's why Corrida which is a "popular" art form is also like you said
intellectual. How did this form begun, I don't know exactly. Is rodeo an art
form ? Surely ;)
It's the same in dance. Dance is such a mysterious langage to me. For a long
time I did not understand what it meant. What it is expressing. Especially,
european classical ballets. It looks so ridiculous. I had to wait to see Buto
dance from Japan to feel what can be done with body and music. Even though on
Buto there is not necessarily music.
Finally, all those different art forms show one thing : how complex is the human
nature, and how many different ways there are to make it express itself, and to
touch the doors of perception.
Thierry.
tst...@natsys.fr
Thierry, you suggested musicians would be wise to look to rap and hip-hop
to revitalize jazz. To explain why, you said that rap and hip-hop are the
contemporary black American "roots" and that this is the ideal source
material for jazz.
I disagreed, saying rap and hip-hop may very well be black American
"roots" but that this is not necessary or sufficient to be interesting
for jazz musicians to use. Although it is far from impossible: look at
Steve Coleman, after all. Exceptions aside, though, I don't think rap and
hip-hop have much to offer jazz right now. Purely my opinion, since I'm
just a listener and can't predict the future.
You said the major developments in jazz have, historically, gone hand in
hand with injections of what was happening in popular music. I disagreed
with this, saying in particular that I didn't believe the development of
bebop was driven by what was going on in popular music. You replied:
> I don't agree. I have read an interview of Allen Ginsberg. He was saying that
> Jack Kerouac used to hang around with bird manager. This guy told Jack Kerouac
> that Charlie Parker inspiration in its phrases was the black langage. Kerouac
> tried to put Bird sax phrases into written words, and rap has made an art from
> Slang.
My impression is that jazz phrasing does indeed tend to reflect black
American speech, somewhere, but again, not all of it, not everywhere, and
in any case that doesn't address my point. Bird's phrasing was highly
speech-like, and perhaps he did model it somehow on "black language,"
consciously or unconsciously. But that's not popular music.
I wondered if free jazz, modal jazz and the 60's modernists delved deep
into the popular music of their time. You said:
> Not of their time but to forgotten jazz aspects : collective improvisation,
> Albert Ayler loved March and was probably inspired by New Orleans marching
> bands, he liked La Marseillaise too, which is our folklore. Modal jazz was a
> return to the melody, what about Miles interpretation of "Someday my prince
> will come" ? Coltrane was probably inspired by Illinois Jacquet who played
> out, in the seventies Free jazz players took funk rythm...
Collective improvisation was never forgotten. But I was talking not about
"deep" folk sources, but contemporary ones, since we were talking about
rap and hip-hop.
You said jazz must be about black American expression, and I disagreed.
You wondered how I would define jazz. I won't even begin to try. What I
will say is that there is no need to use a descriptive definition of what
it has been in the past to decide where to take it now or in the future.
Musicians make those decisions, whether in huge leaps or tiny increments,
based on many different constraints and desires which may include their
devotion to historical practice but also may not. Far be it from me to
interfere.
> i think that if you consider yourself
> playing jazz, you must know at least where it comes from : Blues, spirituals,
> cotton fields. Does it sound too much cliche for you ?
No, I agree it's a good idea to learn the history if you want to be a
part of it today--whether as a listener or a player.
> Music as a universal langage ? Hum, that's another point. No langage is
> universal, you always need to learn it first to understand it.
Good point. Let's just say jazz has something in it very easy to respond
to right away, and so attractive that people everywhere are drawn to want
to learn it in depth and use it as a vehicle for their own individual
expression.
> They probably want to pursue a career too. And they that if they please "daddy
> Wynton", they will please "mother major" too. I'm too excessive here, but does
> those school learn them to open their ears and their minds ?
Their ears, probably. Their minds... that's a personal thing. If you
don't open your mind, can you really blame it on your school? Certainly
there are plenty of open-minded, creative musicians who have studied
music formally. I am very wary of the idea that schools kill creativity.
> Music should be expressing something about yourself. If it's part of yourself,
> it is part of your history. That's why i was saying you must know "where you
> are coming from".
> Playing "where you are coming from", is playing what you are, to make it less
> abstract and more emotionally involved. Because you need to feel it.
My point is that "where you are coming from" includes much, much more
than the kind of music you heard in your neighborhood as a child, and
that even if you love rock, funk, rap, hip-hop, techno, you might
nevertheless express yourself to your heart's content playing bebop or
baroque. I would also say that abstract music can be very moving, and
that "where you are coming from" can also be expressed in abstraction.
<<House's expression is pure gospel [SNIP SNIP SNIP]>>
OK. I agree that house and jazz share many of the same roots. So do rock
and jazz. Doesn't necessarily mean the leaves and flowers would make a
nice bouquet together. But tastes vary.
Henry Robinett
sab...@mindspring.com (sabutin) wrote:
>sab...@mindspring.com (sabutin) wrote:
> Too many typos, not enough time...here it is again, only better...
>=============
>>kold...@mail.idt.net (Dr. Don Koldon) wrote:
>
>>>In article <5k24o4$l...@camel2.mindspring.com>, sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>>>> I have NEVER, except in a sarcastic, ironic or rueful tone, EVER
>>>> heard a musician who can really play refer to the music as "Let's go
>>>> play some bebop!!" or "salsa", or "free music...those are terms used
>>>> by , to and for non-musicians. It's just "music".
>
Well I have to agree with Doc on this one. I think it's a bit bizzare.
It kind of supports the Forrest Gump factor view of jazz musicians. You
know, thse inarticulate drugs addicts. It's like musicians running
through a fog. The more articulate one can be the better. This varies
from musician to musician. As you progress upscale there's less one has
to say, but description helps tremendously when negotiating a new tune.
What you're saying is such a gross generality that it's useless.
Monk wouldn't have to say he wrote a little bebop tune. But there's
nothing criminal about words and descriptions if he did.
I agree that most of the terms you mention are marketing terms, or at
least originated as such, and were created by and large by the media;
magazines and the like. But after such point they became useful tools
to talk to the media with , or the public or even to other musicians.
But bossa nova and clave', wa-wa-ko (sp?) and the huge musicial terms describing the music that any serious drummer, bassist who plays
african-latin-cuban world music should know down cold are used by
musicians and great musician every day.
Henry Robinett
sabutin
Henry Robinett <hrob...@telis.org> wrote:
===============================
NO no no no no...MORE than articulate.
POSTarticulate.
SUPERarticulate.
MUSICALLY articulate.
There are things for which there ARE words, and things for which
there are NOT.
Where words run out of steam, where they are no longer useful,
THAT'S where real music BEGINS.
=========================================
>It's like musicians running
>through a fog. The more articulate one can be the better.
===========================
In terms of new music, fresh music, music that is adventurous and
daring, I absolutely disagree.
What has never been done before CANNOT be put into words.
And isn't the "new", the truly improvised, the unexpected, the
unheard (and unheard of) the real province of this music, and
improvisation in general?
=================================
>This varies
>from musician to musician. As you progress upscale there's less one has
>to say, but description helps tremendously when negotiating a new tune.
>What you're saying is such a gross generality that it's useless.
>Monk wouldn't have to say he wrote a little bebop tune. But there's
>nothing criminal about words and descriptions if he did.
==========================
Then why didn't he?
YOUR position presuppposes the "Forrest Gump" and "inarticulate
drug addict" ideas, not mine. I'm saying that great musicians in
general...and I can only speak from personal experience here...have
progressively LESS and LESS to say about their music (to other players
particularly) as they get progressively heavier.
You could barely get Gil Evans to say ANYTHING about his stuff.
Mingus would write things in his scores like "Go to church,
motherfucker." (A direct quote.) Miles, Monk, Lee Konitz and Jimmy
Knepper, almost EVERY really creative musician of whom I have near
first-hand knowledge, has VERY LITTLE to say about the music in a
performance sense, at least as far as NAMING it is concerned, but the
average studio hack writer will talk your HEAD off about how he wants
stuff phrased, what bag it's in, etc.
=================================
>I agree that most of the terms you mention are marketing terms, or at
>least originated as such, and were created by and large by the media;
>magazines and the like. But after such point they became useful tools
>to talk to the media with , or the public or even to other musicians.
>But bossa nova and clave', wa-wa-ko (sp?)
============================
(guaguanco)
===========================
>and the huge musicial terms describing the music that any serious drummer, bassist who plays
>african-latin-cuban world music should know down cold are used by
>musicians and great musician every day.
>Henry Robinett
===================================
Agreed, they ARE useful to the student OUTSIDE the idiom, for a
while, but then they become excess baggage.( I see a WHOLE lot of
musicians today gonna have some HEAVY overweight charges when it comes
to paying for the baggage they're carrying.)
Again, I say that the terms are mostly useful only for those
occupied in RECREATING something that has already been done. (Even if
THEY were the ones who did it FIRST.)
I will admit that in commercial situations...and by that I mean
situations where time is expensive, money short, which regrettably
includes much of what's being recorded in the various idioms covered
by this newsgroup...a shortcut is needed to communicate quickly and
precisely just what's supposed to happen in a given part of a given
piece. I've done it, and had it done to me, a thousand times.
BUT...this is PRECISELY why there is almost NO "new" music being
produced in these idioms, and why you hear so many REALLY "new" sounds
coming out of the Third World now...the groups (those from Cuba
particularly) have time to rehearse, play and record W/OUT (and/or
PAST) those labels. They've got some ROOM.
You can take a good NYC Cuban influenced rhythm section, tell them
you want a specific feel, a Cha Cha or Caballo or Merengue or
whatever, sketch out a rudimentary bass line, piano parts, etc., crank
up the machine, and out it rolls...A little Machito, some Tito Puente,
Eddie Palmieri, etc...generic "Salsa", "Latin music", whatever.
But take that same rhythm section...and I've done this, often, and
w/the best players in NY...DON'T tell them "what" the feel is, rather
sing it, play it, dance it, write it down if necessary, let THEM tell
THEMSELVES (AND you) what's going on, and what comes out is NOT a
rehash of a bunch of tired old words and feels, it's alive, and it's
NEW. (But it's still got roots.)
Same w/"jazz". Tell a drummer you want a "shuffle", and 99 times
out of 100 you'll get some tired shit or other. But have the bass
player play a little repetitve figure of some kind, sing or play some
on top to establish the emotional feel, and ask the drummer to play
what he HEARS, and (If you've got the right drummer, which we're
presupposing for the sake of most of this argument anyway, because
W/OUT the right musicians, it doesn't matter WHAT you do or don't say
anyway...) you"ll GET a "shuffle", but it WON"T be a compendium of
twenty OTHER drummers' "shuffles", nor will it be the "shuffle" this
drummer played two weeks ago in an entirely different set of
circumstances, it will be a drummer drumming w/very few words, and
it'll be cooking.
AFTERWARDS, some critic or producer or ad exec or academic or drum
student may say it's a "shuffle", but it's NOT...it's just whatever
the hell it is. And better for it.
S.
P.S. I will admit to being a little utopian here, but not all that
much. And those who know me know I live it that way too, as much as
possible.
10034...@compuserve.com
In article ,
cou...@cenerg.cma.fr (Coutier Thierry) wrote:
>
>
>
> Poor uncle Tom, once again you are interpretating my divine Lord. I said that
> yes those poor communities did created some "rich and vibrant art", i'm only
> talking about facts here, that you should know if you listen to jazz, but i'm
> beginning to doubt that you really know what jazz is, do you think it was
> brought the Mayflower immigrants ?
> Btw, do you know why jazz developed in New Orleans ? Because it was the only
> place where slaves were allowed to play music ! Slaves were allowed to play
> their music only in the French Caraibes. Have a look at your history book, poor
> ignorant, you will see it's true.
> But i was saying you constantly interpret my words (it seems you read with your
> eyes, but understand with your ass)
Here I was enjoying our discussion and suddenly you start to insult me!
But I'm an even-tempered individual and am breathing deeply to remain
calm.
Of course I was interpreting what you were saying. I could have been
completely literal-minded but I thought it was much more interesting to
try to understand your point of view more thoroughly. But rather than
clarifying your ideas, you turn sarcastic.
>
> PS : Obviously you are interpretating my words because of your prejudices about
> the French. Listen to me : the French generally speaking are not so much
> obcessed by war class concept, as you seem to believe it, but maybe this kind of
> analyses is not so dull after all. Marx ideas are still pertinent sometimes.
> Take care.
Obviously two can interpet. What on earth makes you think I have
prejudices about the French? And I have no objection to class analysis
per se.
I'll be glad to keep on talking (in French if you prefer!) but please try
to be polite.
Regards,
Tom
Henry Robinett
I won't rehash the whole articles in question. Sabutin's concept is
utopian and not very representative of my experience, and I've played
with some great musicians. Again this is a generality and because of
that it's doomed to inacurracy hell.
It depends upon how responsible you want to be as a composer. As a
composer I hear specific things. I don't have particular names for them
because, in my mind it doesn't matter what they are called. But I will
approximate using words and gestures and sounds. But I want what I hear
played allowing room for interpretation and life. People work
differently. You can't generalize so.
There are words for most everything. When it comes time to play it's
time to stop talking and bow to the Muse. Only the less able musician
allows themselves to be boxed in by words. But rarely have I met great
musicians who won't make it their own. I think originality begins
with the music rather than relying on the serendipity of events, i.e.
musicians going at it with no direction like rats in a maze or like
throwing runes. Ornette could talk your ear off about concept.
Henry Robinett
sabutin
Henry Robinett <hrob...@telis.org> wrote:
---snip---
> Ornette could talk your ear off about concept.
>Henry Robinett
===========================
Exactly.
S.
Coutier Thierry
Uncle Tom ;) wrote :
> Here I was enjoying our discussion and suddenly you start to insult me!
> But I'm an even-tempered individual and am breathing deeply to remain
> calm.
You managed to upset me with my "oversimplified views". As I'm more instinctive
than intellectual, i reacted in a primitive way. If i need to give public
apologizes like they used to in good old USSR, I can do it, sorry sir, Ahrg ! I
hate this taste in my mouth! Putain, what you are doing to me !
> I'll be glad to keep on talking (in French if you prefer!) but please try
> to be polite.
Ok, on ne pas s'enerver pour si peu non ? C'est le printemps, la vie est belle
et j'aime bien votre pays, et sa musique, alors, keep in touch!
Thierry.
PS : and I will never call you "uncle Tom" again, "Promis, jure, si je mens je
vais en enfer !".
tst...@natsys.fr
In article <5k70a3$1ud0$1...@cemef.cma.fr>,
cou...@cenerg.cma.fr (Coutier Thierry) wrote:
>
> Uncle Tom ;) wrote :
>
> > Here I was enjoying our discussion and suddenly you start to insult me!
> > But I'm an even-tempered individual and am breathing deeply to remain
> > calm.
>
> You managed to upset me with my "oversimplified views".
Actually, I didn't say you had oversimplified views (not exactly). I said
you should be careful not to have them... implying you might be veering
in that direction... which was my interpretation. <g>
> [COUPE] on ne pas s'enerver pour si peu non ? C'est le printemps, la vie est
> belle et j'aime bien votre pays, et sa musique, alors, keep in touch!
Je suis bien trop paresseux pour m'énerver! Ca prends trop d'énergie. Par
contre, couper les cheveux en quatre (puis seize, soixant-quatre...), ça,
j'arrive à le faire des mois durant! God bless America, vive la France
(où je réside d'ailleurs depuis, quoi, presque dix-huit ans déjà),
cocorico et tout et tout!
> PS : and I will never call you "uncle Tom" again
You're just lucky I'm a white man!
- Tom
Tom Waters
sabutin (sab...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Again, I find the word "jazz" to be more of a marketing term than a
: musical one. Basie started using the word when the music started to be
: MARKETED as "jazz". He was IN THE MARKETPLACE, and very good at it,
: too.
Jazz is music that grew up in a marketplace, so it's not surprising that
such great figures as Basie were very good on the business side of
things. But he was just as much in a music market in his early years when
he didn't think he was playing jazz. In fact, his decision to focus his
music in a particular way and start calling it jazz made him temporarily
less marketable, as did his band's later innovations that sprung from his
decision to widen the meaning of the word jazz through his music.
: Basie (and those who played and wrote in his bands) INVENTED much
: of the form as they went along (By the way, check out the few Benny
: Moten sides, you want to hear an amazingly different Basie...virtuoso
: piano, fast + elaborate!!!), ...
Great recordings -- Basie's early transitions in style forced him into
some amazing territories.
: The people who INVENT the forms don't NAME
: them, they just play them, and then those forms are named, bought and
: sold, and even the inventors, as the name gains currency and
: dominance, begin to refer to the form they're playing by its popular
: (marketing) name.
This is true. In fact, it seems to me off the top of my head that
musician-invented names, like "M-Base" are generally not successful.
Though "harmolodics" and "restructuralism" have their uses. I doubt that
the word "jazz" was made up by anyone with a deep knowledge of the music.
But my point is that the relationship between name-making (as well as
more detailed kinds of criticism) and jazz music is deep and has always
been there. I don't think we can strip away all of that verbal stuff to
reveal a pure musical truth underneath like the original finish on a
painted antique.
I think, Sabutin, that you are arguing this anti-name position as a
reaction to a particular situation in music, where you see musicians
playing roles at the expense of their own imaginative powers. You may
well be right about this situation (I'm pretty sure that you dislike much
of the music I would offer as exception), and getting away from names may
also be a good strategy for the individual musician trying to break out
of this rut. I don't disagree with you on that level at all. But I'm
arguing a historical point, which is that names like "jazz" and "bebop"
have, at other times in the music's history, played an important and
positive role.
: (I'd like to add that the repertory band phenomenon appears to me
: to be something other than this, at its highest levels, more a
: REACTION to the empty parroting of styles that results in lame neo-bop
: clones and raggedy late 'Trane imitations. In THAT movement, people
: are trying to rediscover the MEAT of the music, much as great
: Shakespearean actors attempt to discover the real music and meaning in
: Shakespeare's words.
I agree completely with this interpretation of the repertory movement.
: Believe me, after several days of rehearsal and performance
: covering a range of styles from Benny Moten through Duke and Basie and
: Goodman, on into the Afro-Cuban/Dizzy Gillespie stuff, and then
: further into Kenton, Gil Evans, and Thad Jones, w/a little bit of
: Africa Brass and some of Brookmeyer's outer stuff mixed in, there are
: no words left, it's just music.)
Sounds good.
skip elliott bowman
: 2...@dejanews.com> <5jr2og$s...@camel3.mindspring.com>
: <8622203...@dejanews.com> <5k24o4$l...@camel2.mindspring.com>
: <koldon19-280...@ppp-9.ts-1.chi.idt.net>
: <5k2qvq$f...@camel4.mindspring.com> <5k2tgi$m...@camel4.mindspring.com>
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016
Distribution:
sabutin <sab...@mindspring.com> wrote:
: sab...@mindspring.com (sabutin) wrote:
: >kold...@mail.idt.net (Dr. Don Koldon) wrote:
: >>In article <5k24o4$l...@camel2.mindspring.com>, sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
: >>> I have NEVER, except in a sarcastic, ironic or rueful tone, EVER
: >>> heard a musician who can really play refer to the music as "Let's go
: >>> play some bebop!!" or "salsa", or "free music...those are terms used
: >>> by , to and for non-musicians. It's just "music".
Really? It's used on a common basis around here. "This one's a bebop
feel." "This is a cumbia." "This is bossa, not a samba!"
Interviewer: What is jazz?"
Louis Armstrong: "Jazz is what I play for a living."
Gilberto Gil: "A samba's not a rhumba!"
: >>This is one of the most bizarre statements ever seen on rmb ... which is
: >>some sort of accomplishment. Do you really know "musicians who can really
: >>play" who never describe music in specific terms? Do local laws prohibit
: >>the use of terms like "bebop, hard bop, blues, salsa, free, soul," etc.
: >>unless spoken in a sarcastic, ironic or rueful tone?
This is a cross I carry. My first gigs singing were in pop. My first
former lessons were in classical (now there's a broad general term if ever
there was one!). My first band was Top-40 rock. My first big time gig
was reggae. My next one was blues and Motown. I toured playing soca,
bossa, salsa, and Ghanian Hi-life/fusion (with real Ghanians thank you
very much). My jazz career is only the last 15 years, yet even last night
I was referred to as a "jazz bassist". I consider myself a musician who
sometimes plays jazz, but preconceptions about that fiddle costs me gigs
sometimes.
Sigh.
: >>I'm trying to figure out other reasons why you've never "heard a musician
: >>who can really play" use the laundry list of descriptive musicial terms
: >>(labels, if you insist) commonly used by musicians who can really play,
: >>hardly play, sorta play, can't play or shouldn't ever try to play.
I have _no_ idea where S. got this notion, but it's his.
: You think that's bizarre?? I don't. I think it's true, w/in my own
: experience. I should have included "among other musicians" in the
: statement, but it's true nonetheless...the better the musicians are,
: the less they use words to describe their music. If Sonny Roillins
: wants a certain feel at a certain place, he PLAYS it, or dances it, or
: sings it, or writes it. People don't say "I want a salsa feel here."
: if they really know what a "salsa" feel (whatever THAT
: means) is...they say "This is the clave; here's the bass line; play
: around this piano part... you got it?"...and count off. Same for
: "swing", "bebop". etc.
They do both. You really must get out more, S. <g>
: Do you really think Monk said to Dizzy "Here's a little bebop tune
: I just wrote" and then played him Misterioso? Naaaahhhhhhh.....
Isn't Dizzy credited with the invention of the term "bebop"? And isn't
his very readable autobiography titled, "To BE Or Not To BOP"?
: (By the way, "bebop", "swing", "free jazz", etc. are NOT "specific
: terms", they're terms made up by people who don't know any more
: specific way of communicating what they're trying to say. And they're
: damned NON-specific at that. Nothing intrinsically wrong w/them,
: except when they begin to substitute for the real music in people's
: minds, which appears to me to be happening a great deal these days.)
Stuff like this makes me wonder if someone is pirating this (normally
wise) man's address. Yo, it happens.
Skip
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
In article <5k2tgi$m...@camel4.mindspring.com> sab...@mindspring.com (sabutin) writes:
>
> You think that's bizarre?? I don't. I think it's true, w/in my own
>experience. I should have included "among other musicians" in the
>statement, but it's true nonetheless...the better the musicians are,
>the less they use words to describe their music. If Sonny Roillins
>wants a certain feel at a certain place, he PLAYS it, or dances it, or
>sings it, or writes it. People don't say "I want a salsa feel here."
>if they really know what a "salsa" feel (whatever THAT
>means) is...they say "This is the clave; here's the bass line; play
>around this piano part... you got it?"...and count off. Same for
>"swing", "bebop". etc.
I can't remember whether I've heard happening players use generic terms,
because if did hear that it wouldn't have struck me as anything
remarkable. But I have seen those terms used on many a chart by
some very seriously happening musicians. If they'll write "boogaloo
feel here" on their charts, why wouldn't they say it out loud,
unless that it's embarassing to be heard saying "boogaloo"
out loud, which could probably get your ass kicked in some
neighborhoods. But "latin" or "swing" doesn't sound so unhip, does it?
sabutin
skip elliott bowman <skip...@teleport.com> wrote:
>: 2...@dejanews.com> <5jr2og$s...@camel3.mindspring.com>
>: <8622203...@dejanews.com> <5k24o4$l...@camel2.mindspring.com>
>: <koldon19-280...@ppp-9.ts-1.chi.idt.net>
>: <5k2qvq$f...@camel4.mindspring.com> <5k2tgi$m...@camel4.mindspring.com>
>Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016
>Distribution:
>sabutin <sab...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>: sab...@mindspring.com (sabutin) wrote:
>: >kold...@mail.idt.net (Dr. Don Koldon) wrote:
>: >>In article <5k24o4$l...@camel2.mindspring.com>, sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>: >>> I have NEVER, except in a sarcastic, ironic or rueful tone, EVER
>: >>> heard a musician who can really play refer to the music as "Let's go
>: >>> play some bebop!!" or "salsa", or "free music...those are terms used
>: >>> by , to and for non-musicians. It's just "music".
>Really? It's used on a common basis around here. "This one's a bebop
>feel." "This is a cumbia." "This is bossa, not a samba!"
>Interviewer: What is jazz?"
>Louis Armstrong: "Jazz is what I play for a living."
====================
"For a living" are the operative words here. I say again, these
terms are COMMERCIAL inventions, and the people who invented the
musics did (do) NOT refer to what they were playing among themselves
as "(fill in the blank here)".
========================
>Gilberto Gil: "A samba's not a rhumba!"
========================
Machito: "Maracas are not what you think !!!"
So WHAT? "Bebop" is not "cumbia".
But if you take it further, ONE "bebop" ("Misterioso") is not
ANOTHER "bebop" ("Salt Peanuts."), because NONE of it is "bebop".
It's just "Misterioso", "Donna Lee", "Straight No Chaser",
"Con Alma", "Billies' Bounce", etc.
I started this whole thing by saying that it appeared to me that
many so-called creative artists in this general scene were so stuck in
a little idiomatic box that they were playing nothing but derivative
crap. I maintain this to be true.
Certainly someone COULD use style words to achieve a shortcut in
the process of the communication of certain desired ideas in a musical
situation...I just think it's a regressive process, on the evidence of
thre approaches of the heaviest musicians about whom I have any
reliable information.
You appear to be in Portland...Maine or Oregon, I don't know. In
either place, a cumbia is a cumbia is a cumbia, more often than not.
In COLOMBIA, or in deep Colombian scenes in NY, "cumbia" is a much
larger neighborhood. Just like the native northern peoples of the
world have dozens of different words for "snow", people who really
LIVE in an idiom, be it "bebop", "salsa", "merengue", "bluegrass",
"gamelan" or any other , have as many shades of the style as there are
bands and players, and the best of them transcend the style to the
point where the commonly used names are irrelevant and even harmful,
in a limiting sort of way.
If you aspire to more, then find players and scenes that DON'T say
"This one's a bebop feel., "This one's a cumbia.", etc., because it's
only a few steps away from that to "This one's a businessman's bounce,
that one's a merry polka."
====================
=================================
>: >>This is one of the most bizarre statements ever seen on rmb ... which is
>: >>some sort of accomplishment. Do you really know "musicians who can really
>: >>play" who never describe music in specific terms? Do local laws prohibit
>: >>the use of terms like "bebop, hard bop, blues, salsa, free, soul," etc.
>: >>unless spoken in a sarcastic, ironic or rueful tone?
>This is a cross I carry. My first gigs singing were in pop. My first
>former lessons were in classical (now there's a broad general term if ever
>there was one!). My first band was Top-40 rock. My first big time gig
>was reggae. My next one was blues and Motown. I toured playing soca,
>bossa, salsa, and Ghanian Hi-life/fusion (with real Ghanians thank you
>very much). My jazz career is only the last 15 years, yet even last night
>I was referred to as a "jazz bassist". I consider myself a musician who
>sometimes plays jazz, but preconceptions about that fiddle costs me gigs
>sometimes.
>Sigh.
>: >>I'm trying to figure out other reasons why you've never "heard a musician
>: >>who can really play" use the laundry list of descriptive musicial terms
>: >>(labels, if you insist) commonly used by musicians who can really play,
>: >>hardly play, sorta play, can't play or shouldn't ever try to play.
>I have _no_ idea where S. got this notion, but it's his.
>: You think that's bizarre?? I don't. I think it's true, w/in my own
>: experience. I should have included "among other musicians" in the
>: statement, but it's true nonetheless...the better the musicians are,
>: the less they use words to describe their music. If Sonny Roillins
>: wants a certain feel at a certain place, he PLAYS it, or dances it, or
>: sings it, or writes it. People don't say "I want a salsa feel here."
>: if they really know what a "salsa" feel (whatever THAT
>: means) is...they say "This is the clave; here's the bass line; play
>: around this piano part... you got it?"...and count off. Same for
>: "swing", "bebop". etc.
>They do both. You really must get out more, S. <g>
=====================
You're right, they do both.
I just wish they wouldn't and/or didn't have to.
(And I'm actually attempting to get out LESS, recently. Tired of
hearing "This one's a bebop feel.", I guess.)
============================
>: Do you really think Monk said to Dizzy "Here's a little bebop tune
>: I just wrote" and then played him Misterioso? Naaaahhhhhhh.....
>Isn't Dizzy credited with the invention of the term "bebop"? And isn't
>his very readable autobiography titled, "To BE Or Not To BOP"?
==========================
I don't know WHO "invented" the term "bebop". Diz might have SAID
it, along w/ "Oop bop shebam, klugle mop" and a bunch of other stuff,
but I'll betcha he wasn't the one to start calling the MUSIC "bebop".
(And yes, he DID use that as the title of his book, but not as the
name of the music he was playing. I've heard him rehearse bands, and
he sang/danced/played the feels. And I mean PLAYED them...he was a
pretty good percussionist and pianist, as well as trumpet player. )
===========================
>: (By the way, "bebop", "swing", "free jazz", etc. are NOT "specific
>: terms", they're terms made up by people who don't know any more
>: specific way of communicating what they're trying to say. And they're
>: damned NON-specific at that. Nothing intrinsically wrong w/them,
>: except when they begin to substitute for the real music in people's
>: minds, which appears to me to be happening a great deal these days.)
>Stuff like this makes me wonder if someone is pirating this (normally
>wise) man's address. Yo, it happens.
>Skip
==================
No, it's me...can'tya tell???
And if you think I'm "normally wise", that I'm often saying
something worth checking out, give this idea a little more thought.
This is really the same thing I've been posting here for months,
I'm just coming at it from a slightly different angle.
S.
sabutin
tst...@natsys.fr wrote:
====snip====
>> PS : and I will never call you "uncle Tom" again
>You're just lucky I'm a white man!
>- Tom
===============================
Why? Is it any less an insult?
S.
sabutin
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu () wrote:
>In article <5k2tgi$m...@camel4.mindspring.com> sab...@mindspring.com (sabutin) writes:
>>
>> You think that's bizarre?? I don't. I think it's true, w/in my own
>>experience. I should have included "among other musicians" in the
>>statement, but it's true nonetheless...the better the musicians are,
>>the less they use words to describe their music. If Sonny Roillins
>>wants a certain feel at a certain place, he PLAYS it, or dances it, or
>>sings it, or writes it. People don't say "I want a salsa feel here."
>>if they really know what a "salsa" feel (whatever THAT
>>means) is...they say "This is the clave; here's the bass line; play
>>around this piano part... you got it?"...and count off. Same for
>>"swing", "bebop". etc.
>I can't remember whether I've heard happening players use generic terms,
>because if did hear that it wouldn't have struck me as anything
>remarkable. But I have seen those terms used on many a chart by
>some very seriously happening musicians. If they'll write "boogaloo
>feel here" on their charts, why wouldn't they say it out loud,
>unless that it's embarassing to be heard saying "boogaloo"
>out loud, which could probably get your ass kicked in some
>neighborhoods. But "latin" or "swing" doesn't sound so unhip, does it?
========================
The words are not "unhip". they're just so unfocused as to be
almost meaningless, useless in a musical context.
( And being useless or meaningless in a musical context is the very
DEFINITION of "unhip".)
S.
Benjamin Smith
On Mon, Apr 28, 1997 11:03 PM, Doug Wamble <mailto:Swin...@nwu.edu>
wrote:
>
>Group interaction is NOT the same thing as pleasing the crowd.
>I never said Trane was out to impress. But it was his dedication
>to a high level of music that made him so great. House music does
>not take the same level of personal practice and dedication to
>create. I'm sorry if this is politically incorrect, but I refuse
>
>to demean a great American art form like jazz music by saying
>that it is on the same musical level as that house stuff.
How can you objectively describe this Doug? (By the way, I agree. Certain
forms of music are more difficult to master than others and especially made
to sound natural.) I've met some elders, cats over 60 who are not into the
elevation of popular music as art mantra that is going on today and are in
full agreement in the spirit of what Doug is saying.
Ben Smith
for a start learning how to read music
learning chord progressions in different keys
mastering scales and fingering
learning articulations and idiomatic playing
Benjamin Smith
On Tue, Apr 29, 1997 8:08 AM, sabutin <mailto:sab...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
> Basie (and those who played and wrote in his bands) INVENTED much
>of the form as they went along (By the way, check out the few Benny
>Moten sides, you want to hear an amazingly different Basie...virtuoso
>will buy things w/a name much faster than they will something that
>can't be categorized...examine this thread, if you doubt that; look
>them, they just play them, and then those forms are named, bought and
>sold, and even the inventors, as the name gains currency and
>dominance, begin to refer to the form they're playing by its popular
>(marketing) name.
So, Sonata-Allegro form, used by Classical composers, Romantic composers or
Minuet/Scherzo trio from are marketing terms?
Is the AABA song form a marketing term, or the 12-bar blues?
Ben S.