Why do we care so much about Kenny G?
Adam Bravo
his music as much as anyone here does.
1. We are all very miffed that Kenny G and John Coltrane are both considered
jazz.
2. How come we don't care that King Oliver and John Coltrane are both
considered jazz?
3. Is the genre of the music affected by the quality of the music?
Limp Biscuit and Elvis Presley are both rock. I'd hardly say that they play
the same sort of music.
SO WHY DO WE CARE SO MUCH?
Ira Chineson
> SO WHY DO WE CARE SO MUCH?
I for one don't care about him and try to ignore him, but if he doesn't stop
sending secret messages to my dog through his soprano sax, I will personally
take him out. He also implanted a transmitter in my brain while I slept and
for that he will pay, oh yes he will.
Zapbailey
>for that he will pay, oh yes he will.
>
>
And he planted the receiver in my brain through which I hear the private
thoughts of Ira Chineson...Ira wants Little Debbie snack cakes....MAKE HIM
STOP!!!!!!
Art
Hide my true feelings toward my online service to email me.
Don Mopsick
news:C4mb5.37169$3E6.3...@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com...
> First of all, I'd like to make it clear that I am NOT defending G. I hate
> his music as much as anyone here does.
>
> 1. We are all very miffed that Kenny G and John Coltrane are both
considered
> jazz.
> 2. How come we don't care that King Oliver and John Coltrane are both
> considered jazz?
I care a great deal, since I make my living playing the jazz of King Oliver.
> 3. Is the genre of the music affected by the quality of the music?
>
> Limp Biscuit and Elvis Presley are both rock. I'd hardly say that they
play
> the same sort of music.
>
> SO WHY DO WE CARE SO MUCH?
We care so much because both King Oliver and Coltrane represent the high
points of their respective styles of jazz, and Kenny G represents a new low
point in music and taste. We care because the word "jazz," although a broad
umbrella term these days, has been stretched to the breaking point by the
widespread acceptance of Kenny G as jazz.
Don Mopsick
Bruce LeClaire
Don Mopsick wrote:
>
>
> We care so much because both King Oliver and Coltrane represent the high
> points of their respective styles of jazz, and Kenny G represents a new low
> point in music and taste. We care because the word "jazz," although a broad
> umbrella term these days, has been stretched to the breaking point by the
> widespread acceptance of Kenny G as jazz.
>
For a look at the various viewpoints the musicians themselves have about
the label "jazz" (circa ~1970) see "Notes and Tones" (1977) by Art
Taylor.
--Bruce
Glenn Wilson
make ad nauseum and it's always met with lame arguments about 'bringing more
people to jazz or the sax'. I gave up on trying to contribute anything to
the ngs regarding Kenny G after writing volumes and having it dismissed by
such comments.
Glenn
Don Mopsick <moph...@landing.com> wrote in message
news:ZHHb5.25408$09.2...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> "Adam Bravo" <ad...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:C4mb5.37169$3E6.3...@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com...
> > First of all, I'd like to make it clear that I am NOT defending G. I
hate
> > his music as much as anyone here does.
> >
> > 1. We are all very miffed that Kenny G and John Coltrane are both
> considered
> > jazz.
> > 2. How come we don't care that King Oliver and John Coltrane are both
> > considered jazz?
>
> I care a great deal, since I make my living playing the jazz of King
Oliver.
>
> > 3. Is the genre of the music affected by the quality of the music?
> >
> > Limp Biscuit and Elvis Presley are both rock. I'd hardly say that they
> play
> > the same sort of music.
> >
> > SO WHY DO WE CARE SO MUCH?
>
> We care so much because both King Oliver and Coltrane represent the high
> points of their respective styles of jazz, and Kenny G represents a new
low
> point in music and taste. We care because the word "jazz," although a
broad
> umbrella term these days, has been stretched to the breaking point by the
> widespread acceptance of Kenny G as jazz.
>
> Don Mopsick
>
>
>
Steve Mack
> First of all, I'd like to make it clear that I am NOT defending G. I hate
> his music as much as anyone here does.
>
> 1. We are all very miffed that Kenny G and John Coltrane are both considered
> jazz.
> 2. How come we don't care that King Oliver and John Coltrane are both
> considered jazz?
> 3. Is the genre of the music affected by the quality of the music?
>
> Limp Biscuit and Elvis Presley are both rock. I'd hardly say that they play
> the same sort of music.
>
> SO WHY DO WE CARE SO MUCH?
But Limp Biscuit has never been considered the epitome of rock. My major
problem with Kenny G (actually, it's my problem with society, not so much Kenny
himself) is that when people think of jazz, they think of Kenny G. For the
people who can't stand listening to Kenny G, they are going to be turned off to
real jazz because they don't know the difference. Thus, a great deal of people
will never understand what great jazz is just because of the crap that Kenny G
plays.
But for the record, I generally don't join in Kenny G-bashing threads. I made
this exception, because I think this thread is one of the more productive Kenny
G-related threads.
--
Smack
"Good jazz is when the leader jumps on the piano, waves his arms, and yells.
Fine jazz is when a tenorman lifts his foot in the air. Great jazz is when he
heaves a piercing note for 32 bars and collapses on his hands and knees. A pure
genius of jazz is manifested when he and the rest of the orchestra run around
the room while the rhythm section grimaces and dances around their instruments."
-Charles Mingus
Adam Bravo
into "real" jazz as we know it. I hope that in 10 years, somebody doesn't
say, "Aw, look at those stupid old bluenote discussions on Deja. That Adam
Bravo guy that hated Kenny G was such a dweeb." Although this time around, a
lot more people agree with me that Kenny is decidedly "dweebish."
"Bruce LeClaire" <bw...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:396F4D58...@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Don Mopsick wrote:
> >
> >
> > We care so much because both King Oliver and Coltrane represent the high
> > points of their respective styles of jazz, and Kenny G represents a new
low
> > point in music and taste. We care because the word "jazz," although a
broad
> > umbrella term these days, has been stretched to the breaking point by
the
> > widespread acceptance of Kenny G as jazz.
> >
>
Toonhead
>
>"Adam Bravo" <ad...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:C4mb5.37169$3E6.3...@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com...
>> his music as much as anyone here does.
>>
>> 1. We are all very miffed that Kenny G and John Coltrane are both
>considered
>> jazz.
>> 2. How come we don't care that King Oliver and John Coltrane are both
>> considered jazz?
>
>
>>
>> Limp Biscuit and Elvis Presley are both rock. I'd hardly say that they
>play
>> the same sort of music.
>>
>> SO WHY DO WE CARE SO MUCH?
>
>points of their respective styles of jazz, and Kenny G represents a new low
>point in music and taste. We care because the word "jazz," although a broad
>umbrella term these days, has been stretched to the breaking point by the
>widespread acceptance of Kenny G as jazz.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I like cololl jazz. Kenny G, Horst Jankowski (RIP-died last year), and Dave
Brubeck--a pioneer since 1940s-50s, though his peak was in 19560 with "Take
Five"( mentioned under my post "Dave Brubeck") after his already wildly
asuccessful 1950s carreer---wualify to me as cool jazz. Of coruse exotica king
Les Baxter and <artin Denny are a branch thereof.
--Steve--or----S.J. Carras
gca...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/JCSt34204/index.html
poporc...@onelist.com
20s-to-50...@onelist.com/
buffy...@eskimo.com
For more visit www.onelist.com.
Toonhead
Adam Bravo
half your errers. Nothing personal, I'm just annoying in general.
"Toonhead" <gca...@aol.commerce> wrote in message
news:20000714181157...@ng-cl1.aol.com...
Jack Woker
> My major
> problem with Kenny G (actually, it's my problem with society, not so much Kenny
> himself) is that when people think of jazz, they think of Kenny G.
And how is this different from the past? In the 60's, most people
considered Al Hirt and Herb Alpert to be jazz. In the 70's, it was
Chuck Mangione. This music has been misunderstood by the masses for its
entire life. There will always be an audience for shlock, and a much
smaller audience for interesting music. Most people don't want
interesting or challenging music- they don't know how to listen to it.
They don't even really know how to listen. They just want to hear what
they already know.
jack
Dennis J. Kosterman
wrote:
Exactly. I don't think Kenny G is keeping anyone (or at least not very
many) away from "real" jazz. Those who want real jazz will find it,
but most people don't want it. It will always be a fringe music.
Some will point out that pre-World War II jazz *was* popular music,
and I can't argue with that. But jazz and pop have evolved in
different directions. I doubt that jazz could become massively popular
again without losing the very qualities that distinguish it as jazz
(Kenny G is a prime example).
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Simon Weil
>> problem with Kenny G (actually, it's my problem with society, not so much
>Kenny
>> himself) is that when people think of jazz, they think of Kenny G.
>
>And how is this different from the past? In the 60's, most people
>considered Al Hirt and Herb Alpert to be jazz. In the 70's, it was
>Chuck Mangione. This music has been misunderstood by the masses for its
>entire life. There will always be an audience for shlock, and a much
>smaller audience for interesting music. Most people don't want
>interesting or challenging music- they don't know how to listen to it.
>They don't even really know how to listen. They just want to hear what
>they already know.
The difference from the past is that Kenny G. is an example of a musical
movement - Smooth Jazz. In fact he is the examplar of an attempted Jazz
revolution - an attempt to shift the boundaries of Jazz. In the past this has
emanated from musicians (e.g. Armstrong, Parker, Coleman). They've created
music of such urgency and value that the boundaries of Jazz have had to shift
to encompass it. But this attempt emanates from the marketing men. They've
created a music of such superficiality and placidity that it can be listened to
by practically anyone. This music sells on a vast scale compared to Jazz. If we
are not careful it will, because it's a movement and not just an individual,
become accepted *as* Jazz - simply because there will be many, many more people
listening to it than the music we love. The marketing men are taking the word
Jazz and asset-stripping it for its credibility. It is the credibility that
Jazz has that this is all about. When Smooth Jazz has used up that credibility
they'll move on to some new "project" to sell units. And no-one, outside the
little community that actually *hears* Jazz will be inclined to ascribe any
credibility to it anymore. Or if they do, it will be for Jazz from the past.
Simon Weil
Check out my Wagner and the Jews book at:
Jack Woker
> I don't think Kenny G is keeping anyone (or at least not very
> many) away from "real" jazz. Those who want real jazz will find it,
> but most people don't want it. It will always be a fringe music.
I accept this reality. I really don't care what ignorant people think.
> Some will point out that pre-World War II jazz *was* popular music,
> and I can't argue with that.
I think the notion that jazz was once America's popular music is
misleading. For every Count Basie and Duke Ellington, there were plenty
of Sammy Kayes and Guy Lombardos. Even the best swing bands made plenty
of commercial sides with vocals in addition to the swing tunes. While
even the most commercial afforts of bands like Benny Goodman's and Artie
Shaw's were of a pretty high quality, it wasn't all "jazz" by any
means. Small group jazz was largely enjoyed by a fringe audience.
jack
sab...@mindspring.com
>Stve Mack wrote:>> My major
>>> problem with Kenny G (actually, it's my problem with society, not so much
>>Kenny
>>> himself) is that when people think of jazz, they think of Kenny G.
>>
>Jack Woker replied:
>>And how is this different from the past? In the 60's, most people
>>considered Al Hirt and Herb Alpert to be jazz. In the 70's, it was
>>Chuck Mangione. This music has been misunderstood by the masses for its
>>entire life. There will always be an audience for shlock, and a much
>>smaller audience for interesting music. Most people don't want
>>interesting or challenging music- they don't know how to listen to it.
>>They don't even really know how to listen. They just want to hear what
>>they already know.
>
>The difference from the past is that Kenny G. is an example of a musical
>movement - Smooth Jazz. In fact he is the examplar of an attempted Jazz
>revolution - an attempt to shift the boundaries of Jazz.
===================
Oh noooooo he isn't.
He's NOT an example of a musical movement...at least not a new one.
He's just a commercial musician making a buck w/his talents, such as
they are.
People have been making "smooth" jazz...and making LOTS of money at
it...since the '20s.
There have been various levels of expertise, but Clyde McCoy, Jimmy
Lunceford, Paul Whiteman, Glenn Miller, Tommy Dorsey, Cab Calloway,
Nat King Cole...the list is nearly endless...founded their careers on
"smooth jazz".
And Bird, 'Trane, Miles, Gil, Bill Evans, Sonny, Bob Brookmeyer and
every OTHER "serious" jazz musician that followed them chronologically
still managed to produce their art.
========================
>In the past this has
>emanated from musicians (e.g. Armstrong, Parker, Coleman). They've created
>music of such urgency and value that the boundaries of Jazz have had to shift
>to encompass it. But this attempt emanates from the marketing men. They've
>created a music of such superficiality and placidity that it can be listened to
>by practically anyone. This music sells on a vast scale compared to Jazz. If we
>are not careful it will, because it's a movement and not just an individual,
===========================
Right.
Just like the "swing" movement.
Just like "pop" music.
No harm, no foul.
Most people don't WANT to be challenged.
Most peole want to hear music.
Whaddya get from that equation??? Pop music.
SO WHAT ???
================
>become accepted *as* Jazz - simply because there will be many, many more people
>listening to it than the music we love. The marketing men are taking the word
>Jazz and asset-stripping it for its credibility. It is the credibility that
>Jazz has that this is all about. When Smooth Jazz has used up that credibility
>they'll move on to some new "project" to sell units.
=====================
Right.
And "jazz", or at least the impulse towards producing and consuming
art music that has been a part of human culture since history began,
will continue, undiminished and unharmed.
This is a Chicken Little flap.
K. G.'s just another in a long line of moderately talented
musicians making a buck.
No big deal.
S.
sab...@mindspring.com
The answers...avarice and envy.
If Kenny G. were a club date sax player making a living outside of
Bowling Green, Kentucky, no one would give a shit.
BUT...he's making a fortune, so everyone jumps on his skinny ass.
S.
sab...@mindspring.com
"How do you get a musician to complain?
Get him a gig."
Corollary...
"How do you get a musician to complain?
Get someone ELSE a gig."
S.
KReilly
>And how is this different from the past? In the 60's, most people
>considered Al Hirt and Herb Alpert to be jazz. In the 70's, it was
>Chuck Mangione. This music has been misunderstood by the masses for its
>entire life. There will always be an audience for shlock, and a much
>smaller audience for interesting music. Most people don't want
>interesting or challenging music- they don't know how to listen to it.
>They don't even really know how to listen. They just want to hear what
>they already know.
Wasn't it only a few years ago that new age pianist George Winston was selling
millions of records by imitating Keith Jarret's solo piano imporovisations from
the 1970s? The same is true in academia, the people who do the groundbreaking
research are not the ones who write popularizing books and make millions. I
thought Kenny G's stuff was that light jazz and soft rock blend called Fuzak.
Steve Mack
> Steve Mack wrote:
>
> > My major
> > problem with Kenny G (actually, it's my problem with society, not so much Kenny
> > himself) is that when people think of jazz, they think of Kenny G.
>
> And how is this different from the past? In the 60's, most people
> considered Al Hirt and Herb Alpert to be jazz. In the 70's, it was
> Chuck Mangione. This music has been misunderstood by the masses for its
> entire life. There will always be an audience for shlock, and a much
> smaller audience for interesting music. Most people don't want
> interesting or challenging music- they don't know how to listen to it.
> They don't even really know how to listen. They just want to hear what
> they already know.
As I said, it's more my problem with society than Kenny G personally. I never said
the phenomenon was any different from the past. The phenomenon has existed
throughout history and in every aspect of culture: art, science, language,
literature, etc. etc. etc. I could write page after page on this, but I guess this
isn't a philosophy newsgroup, so let's just leave it at this.
Wdflannery
'ignorant' people are. Can you distinguish them by the music that they like?
Get off this negative BS.
Vadim Marmer
> SO WHY DO WE CARE SO MUCH?
>
because of money he makes
Jack Woker
"Ignorant" only defines a lack of knowledge. Clearly, anyone who
considers Kenny G to be a jazz artist is ignorant of jazz. Some people
seem concerned that Kenny G and his ilk are creating a false impression
of what jazz is to those who are not familiar with the music. I say, who
cares what those people think? Do you disagree? I have never joined in
the Kenny G bashing, so take your attitude elsewhere.
jack
Simon Weil
> Some people
>seem concerned that Kenny G and his ilk are creating a false impression
>of what jazz is to those who are not familiar with the music. I say, who
>cares what those people think?
Well I care, if only because I come from that place - from those who are
unfamiliar with Jazz.
My first experience of Jazz was when I was at University. I did lights with a
rock band - and we all had various things we listened to, rock things. But all
of us agreed - in that group and the group we competed with - that Jazz was
something we aspired to. I remember coming back on the train once with a guy
from the other band - "What about Jazz then?" He answered that, when he was
good enough he'd like to play it. And my concurring thought was that I'd like
to be able to listen to it. This was mid 70s and Love Supreme and Miles were
current for us. I couldn't listen to most of it, but it had such high
credibility with - I don't know - the cogniscenti, the serious listeners - that
there had to be something there.
But there was no competing "pop" Jazz (or very little - I only knew that
trumpet player with a hat by his photo...Mangione. I didn't think of Alpert as
Jazz) that forced itself on me. If the vast majority of "Jazz" I heard had been
Smooth Jazz - i.e. pap - I wouldn't have had the urge to find out about it.
Impressions matter.
Jack Woker
> >seem concerned that Kenny G and his ilk are creating a false impression
> >of what jazz is to those who are not familiar with the music. I say, who
> >cares what those people think?
>
> Well I care, if only because I come from that place - from those who are
> unfamiliar with Jazz.
Simon, we all come from that place. Your story tells me that you
aspired to something more long before you knew about the music. You had
heard about it enough to realize that it had "cred", and you pursued
it. This already places you in the minority. Most people respond
viscerally to what pleases them, and in most instances, let's face it,
it's what they hear on the radio. Most of these people would probably
not respond the same way to a more challenging musician.
I just don't think that Kenny G and his kind are doing any harm to what
we like to think is "real" jazz. It seems unlikely to me that the
millions of people who have bought his albums might have bought one by
John Coltrane (or anyone else you care to name) had they been given the
chance. Chances are they wouldn't like it anyway. KG's music is light
and polite, it sounds very pretty and contemporary, and this is what
draws people to it.
I don't begrudge him his success. He gives the people what they want.
jack
Bruce LeClaire
Jack Woker wrote:
>
> Most of these people would probably not respond the same way to a
> more challenging musician.
>
Yeah, I was listening to some Gerald Wilson when my 7 yr old niece
walked into the room. I asked her if she liked the music and she
proclaimed "I think it's weird".
Later on she walked in after the CD was finished, and exclaimed "Good,
you don't have that music on".
I've always thought of jazz as an acquired taste, and one not for
everyone. Somehow that suits me just fine, even if it implies a lack of
major funding for the endeavor.
--Bruce
Adam Bravo
and then think "boring" because everybody says it is. They never sit down
and listen to the non-repetitive improvisation without looking for the bad
parts. They just listen for lyrics. And some jazz really is boring, if
people play the same thing each time the chords roll around.
Genie Baker
trouble at age 9 or so for neglecting my classical piano book in favor
of a jazz book. Jazz sounded "weird" to me, but that's why I liked it
-- it was surprising and fun.
A friend's kid latched on to Monk right away, and could pick out Monk
tunes (her Dad plays piano) by the time she was 7 or so. Other friends
have stories about their kids' getting into more avant garde stuff. My
theory has been that their ears haven't been trained to expect certain
musical conventions, and so maybe it isn't as confusing for them as it
can be for the rest of us.
In article <3971DC30...@mindspring.com>,
Bruce LeClaire <bw...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>Yeah, I was listening to some Gerald Wilson when my 7 yr old niece
>walked into the room. I asked her if she liked the music and she
>proclaimed "I think it's weird".
>Later on she walked in after the CD was finished, and exclaimed "Good,
>you don't have that music on".
>
>I've always thought of jazz as an acquired taste, and one not for
>everyone. Somehow that suits me just fine, even if it implies a lack of
>major funding for the endeavor.
>
>--Bruce
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Baker gba...@umich.edu
Adam Bravo
"Adam Bravo" <ad...@home.com> wrote in message
news:gDlc5.40864$3E6.4...@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com...
> Jazz , IMO, is NOT, I repeat NOT an aquired taste. Some people think jazz
> and then think "boring" because everybody says it is. They never sit down
> and listen to the non-repetitive improvisation without looking for the bad
> parts. They just listen for lyrics. And some jazz really is boring, if
> people play the same thing each time the chords roll around.
>
Adam Bravo
particularly interesting rock, either.
"johnti" <joh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3971E172...@hotmail.com...
> we have the same problem with what is labelled "Swing music" these
> days. eg. hang out in alt.music.swing. There's a whole bunch of
> misrepresentation going on out there about what Swing music is today.
> There are rock 'n roll and 'jump blues' bands saying that they play
> "swing music" and they are doing nothing of the kind!!!
> To me swing musicians are the guys who played swing in big bands and the
> small bands. a swing musician has a depth of musicality unseen outside
> the jazz world. What about Count Basie, Oscar Peterson, Benny Goodman,
> Roy Eldridge, Nat King Cole, Lionel Hampton, Teddy Wilson, Woody Herman,
> and the thousands of great guys who play(ed) with them.
> And then there's the singers, Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Nancy
> Wilson, Dinah Washington, and a whole class of fine swinging singers.
> When bebop came along it was the great musicians (and some great
> musicians who came out of nowhere!) that made it work, playing in bop
> bands and going into cool jazz and more.
> But the loophole is that a bunch of musicians dropped into jump blues,
> and down further into rock 'n roll musically speaking, and this is where
> todays neoswingers pick up. But they are really rockers. They
> generally don't care for swing or jazz, they just want to pump out jump
> blues with a horn section.
> people need to know what swing is, and not have a pale imitation given
> to them!!
>
Jack Woker
>
> Jazz , IMO, is NOT, I repeat NOT an aquired taste. Some people think jazz
> and then think "boring" because everybody says it is.
Are you concerned about people whose opinions are drawn from others?
People who explore things for themselves and form their own opinions are
always more interesting to me.
As to whether jazz is an acquired taste, I think this means that those
who like it were drawn to it before they understood it. As Simon said,
he was interested in jazz before he learned about it. He (and all of
us) developed a taste for it over time. Not everyone has the desire to
acquire the taste.
jack
johnti
M. Taboada
reaction that precedes "learning" about a type of music. I can pinpoint
very precisely two early hearings that sparked a lifelong interest and
love of jazz. The first was hearing Art Tatum on the radio. This stuff
seemed unlike anything else I'd heard before, a rich configuration of
notes where the tune was given a tremendous workout (I don't recall what
tune it was). The other was hearing a trumpet solo by the great Joe
Smith with the Fletcher Henderson band, also on the radio. This gave me
goosebumps, for no apparent reason. So, at the age of twelve or so, I
became a jazz fan, started checking out some recordings and magazines.
The jazz bug usually takes hold of a person and doesn't let go. It's a
personal resonance with the music, not a product of learning. A few
decades ago, "music appreciation" was the thing in schools. Well, the
result was very often the *opposite* of catching the bug. It seems to me
that the bug must bite unexpectedly, even randomly. If it's made
explicit, and accompanied by history, explanations, etc., a kid will
often reject it out of hand.
Regards, and sorry to ramble.
MrT
Thomas F Brown
KReilly <kre...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Wasn't it only a few years ago that new age pianist George Winston was selling
>millions of records by imitating Keith Jarret's solo piano imporovisations from
>the 1970s?
No, Winston doesn't sound much like Jarrett at all to my ears. He's
more akin to new age guitar music than to any pianist I'm familiar
with.
Josh Kortbein
: people need to know what swing is, and not have a pale imitation given
: to them!!
I believe that fad has pretty much taken care of itself - what
are you worried about?
Josh
NP: Steve Reich, _Music for 18 Musicians_
--
josh blog: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/blog/
tdr: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/tdr/
Richard Tabnik
simo...@aol.com (Simon Weil) wrote:
>Jack Woker wrote:
>> Some people
>>seem concerned that Kenny G and his ilk are creating a false impression
>>of what jazz is to those who are not familiar with the music. I say, who
>>cares what those people think?
..Well, does it always work like that? There can be a number of factors.
Seems to me that if a person is satisfied with G, you cannot do much...
on the other hand, people are also influenced by what they are exposed to.
Why is jazz not presented in concert more in schools? Remember, I
was part of a Federally-funded [CETA] jazz band in Buffalo, NY for
over 2 years and saw the difference that made.
We played concerts everywhere from grade schools to colleges,
hospitals to parks. I genuinely feel to this day that society got
a tremendous return for their [our] money.
And the level of music appreciation was pretty high in that town
during the mid-70*s. [I have not been there in years so I do
not know the current scene...but with people like Al Tinney,p,
Bilal Abdullah, sax, Sabu Adeyola, bass, Bobby Militello, woodwinds,
et. al, *something must be happening*!]
So what I am getting at is that people should have the chance to
hear a lot of music [not just jazz] and that it could be available
almost everywhere at low cost from paying musicians to play
concerts at aforementioned venues.
I realize that this happens somewhat but I am talking on a much
larger scale...
ah, I can dream, can I not?
Dreams aside, I am into playing as many gigs as possible...which
i feel it the basic reality for a performing artist...and jazz is
a performing art...I dig letting people hear me, whatever the reaction...
>
>Well I care, if only because I come from that place - from those
who are
>unfamiliar with Jazz.
..like most Americans...I mean, when I was a kid [in the 50*s and
60*s] the major media had very little jazz in prime time. Steve
Allen and Wm. B. Williams and a few other things were happening..
but in prime time, it was like Louis Armstrong on Ed Sullivan,
which is pretty difficult a scene to really dig Pops!.
So, as Leonard Feather said in the Gary Giddins video on Bird:
*There was really not attention in the major media to
jazz as an art form.*
>
>My first experience of Jazz was when I was at University. I did lights with a
>rock band - and we all had various things we listened to, rock things. But all
>of us agreed - in that group and the group we competed with - that Jazz was
>something we aspired to. I remember coming back on the train once with a guy
>from the other band - "What about Jazz then?" He answered that, when he was
>good enough he'd like to play it. And my concurring thought was that I'd like
>to be able to listen to it. This was mid 70s and Love Supreme and Miles were
>current for us. I couldn't listen to most of it, but it had such high
>credibility with - I don't know - the cogniscenti, the serious listeners - that
>there had to be something there.
For me, I remember that the so-called *jazz-rock* scene [BS+T, and
later Weather Report and Mahvishnu, et. al] was supposed to *bring
people to jazz*. The same thing was said about the alto sax solo
that Phil Woods played on *I Love You Just the Way You Are* for
Billy Joel...
I do not feel that this really works, even though I am now into jazz
since 1970...
But I was lucky...I played rock during the Beatles era, switching to
blues and later to jazz. The legendary DJ Symphony Sid Torin was
on radio in NYC playing, among other sides, *Line Up*, *Wow* [by
Tristano] and stuff by Bird et. al.
Plus, I was very serious about music and so were many of my friends
some of whom started studying with Tristano, Konitz and Bauer, which
is where it really all started for me...
I once posted an article on r.m.b . that was an interview with Lennie
Tristano entitled:
*Watered-down Bop destroying Jazz*
where LT addresses, among other things, the question of, like, George
Shearing...the original Kenny G?...and says that it is not good jazz and
not good for jazz.
Here is a thought:
Why not just take the Federal Defense Budget and the Federal Arts
Budget and switch them?
Do not hold your breath...
>
>But there was no competing "pop" Jazz (or very little - I only knew that
>trumpet player with a hat by his photo...Mangione. I didn't think of Alpert as
>Jazz) that forced itself on me. If the vast majority of "Jazz" I heard had been
>Smooth Jazz - i.e. pap - I wouldn't have had the urge to find out about it.
..I dug a lot of different things coming up...I got to see Weather
Report a few times...I dug them more than Mahavishnu...probably
because I am a sax player...
What I am trying to say is that, while a few people will stop at
nothing to find the greatest music that they can hear, most people
are not programmed to search that hard for artistic fulfillment...
many just wish to *consume* the latest fad...
I just can feel a bit sad for someone who has never really been
moved by some great jazz improvising...
>
>Impressions matter.
..absolutely...but we live in a society which values money over art,
things over people...
..and that cannot go on much longer...
Kenny G is the McDonalds of music in a world that wants to feed
ketchup to schoolchildren at lunch and call it a vegetable.
>
>Simon Weil
>
>
>Check out my Wagner and the Jews book at:
>http://members.aol.com/wagnerbuch/intro.htm
Best Wishes for a Peaceful Life in a Happy World in the New Millennium!
Sincerely,
Richard Tabnik, Jazz Alto Saxophonist
e-mail: <rcta...@inch.com>
WWW: <http://www.inch.com/~rctabnik>
<http://www.newartistsrecords.com>
"Music is the thing of the world that I love most."
Samuel Pepys [1633-1703]
Glenn Wilson
news:8ku854$5av$3...@news.iastate.edu...
>
> I believe that fad has pretty much taken care of itself - what
> are you worried about?
Josh - Not only has it taken care of itself, it's pretty much deceived a
whole 'generation' of music fans (a generation being about 5 years), about
what swing is. The problem comes in when a real swing band plays a whole
set of swing music and then some idiot comes up and asks if they can play
any swing. I've had this happen numerous times.
Just like 'smooth jazz' is ruining the jazz scene, the whole swing movement
has pretty much ruined swing music. (A bit of an overstatement, but you get
my point).
These 'fads' are very dangerous to real musicians trying to play the music
they love and respect.
Glenn
Simon Weil
>> > Some people
>> >seem concerned that Kenny G and his ilk are creating a false impression
>> >of what jazz is to those who are not familiar with the music. I say, who
>> >cares what those people think?
>>
>> Well I care, if only because I come from that place - from those who are
>> unfamiliar with Jazz.
>
>Simon, we all come from that place. Your story tells me that you
>aspired to something more long before you knew about the music. You had
>heard about it enough to realize that it had "cred", and you pursued
>it. This already places you in the minority. Most people respond
>viscerally to what pleases them, and in most instances, let's face it,
>not respond the same way to a more challenging musician.
I suppose it is true that I was responding to what I perceived as an elite
music. But it goes against something very deep-seated in me to be happy being
part of an elite. It does seem to me, for example, that people can go and enjoy
Van Gogh's pictures in their millions - I mean really enjoy them, not just say
they're enjoying them - and to me no Post-Impressionist picture is terribly
"easy". I would draw a parallel between training your ear for Jazz and training
your eye for that sort of on-the-way-to abstraction painting. Perhaps you could
say that 40's and 50's and 60's Jazz (say the bop revolution up to Miles's 60s
band) is a parallel to Post-Impressionism in terms of "difficulty". And people
"get" this stuff (P-I) and on a vast scale.
I mean, maybe this is all rationalisation and I'm just unwilling to accept that
I'm a member of an elite and be happy with it. But to me, this whole
painting/Jazz parallel is terribly resonant. I don't think it's Jazz that's so
difficult, it's just that it hasn't been put across.
Greensill
The sad news today is that even a rabid jazz fan is unlikely to hear Fletcher
Henderson on the radio.
I had the same sort of introduction to jazz when a classmate played, in a
musical appreciation class that normally bored us stiff with classical music
history, a Jelly Roll Morton record. I was transfixed and hooked forever. But I
do wonder why the classical music didn't get to me. Because it does now I spend
more time listening to classical than jazz.
Mike Greensill
Tom Walls
>
>
>I think the notion that jazz was once America's popular music is
>misleading. For every Count Basie and Duke Ellington, there were plenty
>of Sammy Kayes and Guy Lombardos. Even the best swing bands made plenty
>of commercial sides with vocals in addition to the swing tunes. While
>even the most commercial afforts of bands like Benny Goodman's and Artie
>Shaw's were of a pretty high quality, it wasn't all "jazz" by any
>means. Small group jazz was largely enjoyed by a fringe audience.
>
> jack
>
According to my mother, who was a pretty big fan of popular music during the
30s-40s, people didn't even commonly call the music "jazz", they referred to
it as "Swing".
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
Kieneb1
record with the greater Yanni!
That will be the CD of the Decade!
Simon Weil
>As to whether jazz is an acquired taste, I think this means that those
>who like it were drawn to it before they understood it. As Simon said,
>he was interested in jazz before he learned about it. He (and all of
>us) developed a taste for it over time. Not everyone has the desire to
>acquire the taste.
I think that's true. There is something *active* in it for me and you and I
guess loads of other (?all) people on rmb. But, you know, in all of this
there's a kind of quest - anyway for me. It's not exactly the Holy Grail I'm
seeking but something that speaks to me - and really *of* me - in a deep kind
of way. I don't think I could live my life without something like that. Other
people get that from other Arts - or Religion - This whole thing is taking on a
kind of quasi-religious tone for me - But I appear to want to get it from Jazz.
Jack Woker
> I'm a member of an elite and be happy with it.
I have a little trouble with the word "elite". It implies snobbery.
I'd like to think that I have knowledge, appreciation, and enjoyment of
something special that most other people don't know or care about. As
far as I'm concerned, it's their loss.
jack
Greensill
appear to want to get it from Jazz. >>Simon
I think that's true and it's also the reason we all argue soooooo passionately
for our particular corner of this wonderful music.
Mike Greensill
Bruce LeClaire
Yes, it's true, you do not choose jazz, jazz chooses you.
--Bruce
Simon Weil
>> I mean, maybe this is all rationalisation and I'm just unwilling to accept
>that
>> I'm a member of an elite and be happy with it.
>
>I have a little trouble with the word "elite". It implies snobbery.
>I'd like to think that I have knowledge, appreciation, and enjoyment of
>something special that most other people don't know or care about. As
>far as I'm concerned, it's their loss.
>
(elitism) and I know it's not good for me.
Simon Weil
>>My first experience of Jazz was when I was at University. I did lights with
>a
>>rock band - and we all had various things we listened to, rock things. But
>all
>>of us agreed - in that group and the group we competed with - that Jazz was
>>something we aspired to. I remember coming back on the train once with a guy
>>from the other band - "What about Jazz then?" He answered that, when he was
>>good enough he'd like to play it. And my concurring thought was that I'd
>like
>>to be able to listen to it. This was mid 70s and Love Supreme and Miles
>were
>>current for us. I couldn't listen to most of it, but it had such high
>>credibility with - I don't know - the cogniscenti, the serious listeners -
>that
>>there had to be something there.
>
>
>For me, I remember that the so-called *jazz-rock* scene [BS+T, and
>later Weather Report and Mahvishnu, et. al] was supposed to *bring
>people to jazz*. The same thing was said about the alto sax solo
>that Phil Woods played on *I Love You Just the Way You Are* for
> Billy Joel...
>
>I do not feel that this really works, even though I am now into jazz
>since 1970...
No, I don't feel it's the way it really works either. I mean I like Weather
Report n'all - but I never had any doubt that Coltrane, Miles etc. was much
deeper music - and I don't think that I would really have been interested
without that sense of something deep in the background. Still, it did help me
that I could listen to _Mysterious Traveller_ straight off and know it was Jazz
>
>But I was lucky...I played rock during the Beatles era, switching to
>blues and later to jazz. The legendary DJ Symphony Sid Torin was
> on radio in NYC playing, among other sides, *Line Up*, *Wow* [by
> Tristano] and stuff by Bird et. al.
>
>Plus, I was very serious about music and so were many of my friends
> some of whom started studying with Tristano, Konitz and Bauer, which
>is where it really all started for me...
>
>I once posted an article on r.m.b . that was an interview with Lennie
>Tristano entitled:
>
>*Watered-down Bop destroying Jazz*
>
>where LT addresses, among other things, the question of, like, George
> Shearing...the original Kenny G?...and says that it is not good jazz and
> not good for jazz.
>
>Here is a thought:
>
>Why not just take the Federal Defense Budget and the Federal Arts
> Budget and switch them?
>
>Do not hold your breath...
No, but it's a nice thought. They ought to try it for a day anyway.
>
>>
>>But there was no competing "pop" Jazz (or very little - I only knew that
>>trumpet player with a hat by his photo...Mangione. I didn't think of Alpert
>as
>>Jazz) that forced itself on me. If the vast majority of "Jazz" I heard had
>been
>>Smooth Jazz - i.e. pap - I wouldn't have had the urge to find out about it.
>
>..I dug a lot of different things coming up...I got to see Weather
>Report a few times...I dug them more than Mahavishnu...probably
> because I am a sax player...
>
>What I am trying to say is that, while a few people will stop at
> nothing to find the greatest music that they can hear, most people
> are not programmed to search that hard for artistic fulfillment...
>many just wish to *consume* the latest fad...
Yeah, but here's the thing. You don't have to be one of us guys who are, I
suppose, driven to find artistic satisfaction. If the thing is there available,
comprehensible to people - That is if people don't have to search it out but
already have some sort of idea of its intrinsic value - You get a whole new
audience. I don't at all see that enjoyment of Jazz means you have to search it
out. Why can't it we turn it around and have Jazz search out these people in
some way - and I don't mean by watering down. I mean by playing to the highest
standards and having it talked about, criticised, to the highest standards too.
This to me is where Jazz has fallen down. If you look at Visual Art - There you
have many fine critics who have conveyed its greatness to the population at
large. I can't see why we can't do that in Jazz.
>I just can feel a bit sad for someone who has never really been
>moved by some great jazz improvising...
>
>>
>>Impressions matter.
>
>..absolutely...but we live in a society which values money over art,
> things over people...
>
>..and that cannot go on much longer...
>
Society is not monolithic. There are loads of people out there who share your
views. Jazz is one of the great hold-outs for artistic integrity. That gives it
a head start in interesting these people. You can never tell with Art - what
will turn a new generation on. You really can't. Life is weird.
If these people get the idea is Kenny G *is* Jazz, we can forget them.
TJ
holiday south.I want to talk about jazz and the jazz community but not
under that SOB's name. Let's get this NG in gear and let's extricate
ourselves from stupid fixes like the title of this thread......for CS !
If I was KG I would be pretty satisfied that I had rattled your chains
to the point where the mention of my name can engender how many.....a
hundred responses Let's talk about the good stuff ! Jazz ...the music
we all like...in all of its miraculous and amazing
reincarnations.....the music lives...
TJ
--
Please remove the word NOSPAM from my E Mail address when replying.
Thank you
Josh Kortbein
:This to me is where Jazz has fallen down. If you look at Visual Art - There you
: have many fine critics who have conveyed its greatness to the population at
: large. I can't see why we can't do that in Jazz.
Do we really have that in visual art? It seems to me the "population at
large" pretty much appreciates art superficially, and historically,
their tastes stop around cubism.
Josh
NP: John Zorn, _Godard / Spillane_
Josh Kortbein
: These 'fads' are very dangerous to real musicians trying to play the music
: they love and respect.
You seem to be implying that if it weren't for the faddish knockoffs
(i.e. Cherry Poppin' Daddies and the other neu-swing bands), the
"real" bands being knocked off would be better off. But what audience
is lost? Admittedly there's a bit of an image problem - people thinking
they know and love swing, and thus perhaps remaining ignorant of
a "more real" and active music scene - but would these people ever
listen to the real thing anyway?
Simon Weil
>>>> I mean, maybe this is all rationalisation and I'm just unwilling to
>accept
>>>that
>>>> I'm a member of an elite and be happy with it.
>>>
>>Jack Woker replied:
>>>I have a little trouble with the word "elite". It implies snobbery.
>>>I'd like to think that I have knowledge, appreciation, and enjoyment of
>>>something special that most other people don't know or care about. As
>>>far as I'm concerned, it's their loss.
>>>
>>I suppose I'm aware of a tendency in *me* to go in that sort of direction
>>(elitism) and I know it's not good for me.
>>
>
>On the other hand, if you are in the elite, maybe it's best not to deny it.
>
>Is it possible to have an attitude, and not have it be a bad attitude?
>Sometimes
>a little attitude does wonders.
>
>Pronouncement: Simon Weil, you ARE elite. Not to worry.
>
>Of course, I could only pronounce you to be elite if I am also elite. :)
>
>I hereby pronounce RMB to be elitist. Enjoy!
>
I can't. Sorry. I'm just too aware of my innate deficiencies. I mean, I know
what my ear is. It's kind of solid, reliable - it makes mistakes, but it's OK.
It's not an elite ear. It's just OK. I also don't know that much. I have patchy
knowledge. And that's it, doesn't add up to elite to me. Adds up to a guy
who's still searching.
Simon Weil
>:This to me is where Jazz has fallen down. If you look at Visual Art - There
>you
>: have many fine critics who have conveyed its greatness to the population at
>: large. I can't see why we can't do that in Jazz.
>
>Do we really have that in visual art? It seems to me the "population at
>large" pretty much appreciates art superficially, and historically,
>their tastes stop around cubism.
>
to accept, maybe, that lots of people don't get into it that deep. BUT people
do get Guernica - and that, to repeat the argument I had with people here
before, comes well out of the Cubist tradition and is a *difficult* painting.
You only have to go to a Monet exhibition (of which there are loads) to see
that stuff that goes beyond straight figuration draws people - and you only
have to listen to know that they are deeply (sometimes) moved. Same thing with
Van Gogh. Same thing with Cezanne. None of this stuff is "easy". Van Gogh is
*weird* (looked at in plain figurative terms) - but it's *expressive* weirdness
- and people have got used to the language - or, more properly, have been
gotten used it by some decent critics. You have to, in the first instance
*present* this stuff, so that people's way of looking changes to incorporate
the expressive language. Then they get it. We don't have that it in Jazz, we
don't have people who look at it from the uniniated point of view and try to
work out what it is that it takes to put Jazz across. People just give up and
believe it's hopeless. Phooeee.
Adam Bravo
let's extricate
> ourselves from stupid fixes like the title of this thread
What is anybody trying to fix?
KReilly
>I'd like to think that I have knowledge, appreciation, and enjoyment of
>something special that most other people don't know or care about. As
>far as I'm concerned, it's their loss.
I think that some aspect of elitism is inescapable as soon as value judgments
are made. If you just think that your knowledge allows you to appreciate
something that most people don't care for then it's not elitism. But if you
think that the music you appreciate is actually better than the drivel most
people listen to then it seems that there's an aspect of elitism involved. It's
as if you're saying that the masses prefer Kenny G because they don't know any
better.
guy f klose
>I am still waiting for the great Kenny G to
>record with the greater Yanni!
Haven't we all heard this already: wasn't there some
kind of KTel guy...Zamfir the pan flute guy or something
like that, and he had supposed sold more records than
anyone else in history. Or was that Boxcar Willie?
Anyway, Zamfir may just be the perfect fusion of
G & Y.
--
Guy Klose
g...@world.std.com
JC Martin
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100071...@morpheus.cis.yale.edu...
> >
> > SO WHY DO WE CARE SO MUCH?
> >
>
> because of money he makes
No, for me it's because he claimed his music is as valid as Coltrane's.
What's often not understood about Kenny G. is that he is a purposeful fraud.
He told the Jazz Times that his next record (the one with the Louis
Armstrong track that came out later) was going to be *his* jazz record. Why
shouldn't jazz fans and musicians stand up when a non-jazz musician is
trying to co-opt their music for commercial purposes. One of the reasons it
sells is because the jazz label implies hipness. His fans are led to
believe that they are listening to something more substantial than pop
music. What's wrong in attempting to expose that lie?
-JC
JC Martin
Adam Bravo
we care now. Thank you.
"JC Martin" <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ZI6d5.1366$GQ1....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Simon Weil
>> > Some people
>> >seem concerned that Kenny G and his ilk are creating a false impression
>> >of what jazz is to those who are not familiar with the music. I say, who
>> >cares what those people think?
>>
I replied:
>> Well I care, if only because I come from that place - from those who are
>> unfamiliar with Jazz.
>
>Simon, we all come from that place. Your story tells me that you
>aspired to something more long before you knew about the music. You had
>heard about it enough to realize that it had "cred", and you pursued
>it. This already places you in the minority. Most people respond
>viscerally to what pleases them, and in most instances, let's face it,
>it's what they hear on the radio. Most of these people would probably
>not respond the same way to a more challenging musician.
>
>we like to think is "real" jazz. It seems unlikely to me that the
>millions of people who have bought his albums might have bought one by
>John Coltrane (or anyone else you care to name) had they been given the
>chance. Chances are they wouldn't like it anyway. KG's music is light
>and polite, it sounds very pretty and contemporary, and this is what
>draws people to it.
>I don't begrudge him his success. He gives the people what they want.
To give a purely personal answer to this (which I didn't before). I just don't
see *me*, if I were around now trying to get into Jazz, being drawn into it.
It's a purely instinctive thing, but I feel that the *major* face of Jazz as
it's presented to the public is coming to be defined from the "serious" side by
Wynton et al and from the "easy" side by Kenny G. et al. I mean those are the
guys who present themselves to the public in a massive (for Jazz) way. And
neither of them reach me in that kind of neo-religious way that I want. I can't
speak for other people, but that's the way *I* feel.
Jack Woker
> I think that some aspect of elitism is inescapable as soon as value judgments
> are made. If you just think that your knowledge allows you to appreciate
> something that most people don't care for then it's not elitism. But if you
> think that the music you appreciate is actually better than the drivel most
> people listen to then it seems that there's an aspect of elitism involved. It's
> as if you're saying that the masses prefer Kenny G because they don't know any
> better.
I didn't say that, and I didn't mean that. Without going back and
rereading my previous posts on this subject, I recall saying that the
music we like, which we call "jazz", for the most part would not appeal
to most Kenny G fans. It's not what they are interested in hearing.
KG's music is light, poppy, and pretty, and a lot of jazz is more
challenging, less accessible.
jack
M. Taboada
<<To give a purely personal answer to this (which I didn't before). I
just don't see *me*, if I were around now trying to get into Jazz, being
drawn into it. It's a purely instinctive thing, but I feel that the
*major* face of Jazz as it's presented to the public is coming to be
defined from the "serious" side by Wynton et al and from the "easy" side
by Kenny G. et al. I mean those are the guys who present themselves to
the public in a massive (for Jazz) way. And neither of them reach me in
that kind of neo-religious way that I want. I can't speak for other
people, but that's the way *I* feel.>>
At least Wynton is a real jazz musician, albeit one without a
first-class imagination. For those who are already jazz fans, it's hard
to get excited about his recordings, despite the technical excellence of
the band. However, Wynton could be a perfectly good entry point to jazz
for kids. Say you hear Wynton talk about Bechet, or play an Ellington
tune. That might lead you to check out the real thing, the jazz section
at the record store, good jazz programs on the radio, and *that* leads
to jazz, no question.
I have my reservations about Wynton as a creative force in jazz, but I
don't think he can be accused of presenting pop and easy-listening crap
as jazz, like the subject of this thread. Wynton *does* do jazz.
Regards,
MrT
Anon233575757
feeling of self-worth only by criticizing others. Your contempt for G is
actually an expression of your own self-loathing, with its object displaced.
It’s bad enough to witness in private, but, this newsgroup gives you a
opportunity to congregate in an orgy of mutual validation and congratulation -
"Yes, yes, we’re an ELITE". Sure you are!
Anon.
KReilly
The "you" was a generic you. I should have written "If *one*..."
JC Martin
news:20000719120729...@ng-fp1.aol.com...
Are you sure those are my issues? *chuckle*
-JC
Michael Fitzgerald
><< The other was hearing a trumpet solo by the great Joe Smith with the
>Fletcher Henderson band, also on the radio. >>MrT
>
>The sad news today is that even a rabid jazz fan is unlikely to hear Fletcher
>Henderson on the radio.
But - just today I heard two Fletcher pieces ("Yeah Man" and "Queer
Notions") in their original versions, followed by performances of the
same tunes by the Sun Ra Arkestra. Normally it's hard enough to hear
Fletcher OR Sun Ra, but I got BOTH!
Where? On WKCR-FM, New York (89.9 FM). Which is available worldwide to
those rabid jazz fans with internet capability at www.wkcr.org - and
there's always a good chunk of real swing music presented every
Saturday night 6-9 PM on Phil Schaap's show "Traditions In Swing".
The great thing about internet broadcasting is that you don't have to
be limited to what your local area is (or isn't) programming. Everyone
can delight in the best of everywhere. If you haven't checked into it,
please do. It sure beats complaining about what's lacking on the
"regular" radio. Yeah, I know, you can't get it in your car (yet)...
Mike
David Gascon
>
> The great thing about internet broadcasting is that you don't have to
> be limited to what your local area is (or isn't) programming. Everyone
> can delight in the best of everywhere. If you haven't checked into it,
> please do. It sure beats complaining about what's lacking on the
> "regular" radio. Yeah, I know, you can't get it in your car (yet)...
>
> Mike
>
Vermont phoneline, either, where 26400 bps is about as good as it gets!
(sigh)
Marcel-Franck Simon
: My major
: problem with Kenny G (actually, it's my problem with society, not so much Kenny
: himself) is that when people think of jazz, they think of Kenny G. For the
: people who can't stand listening to Kenny G, they are going to be turned off to
: real jazz because they don't know the difference. Thus, a great deal of people
: will never understand what great jazz is just because of the crap that Kenny G
: plays.
Contrast the Generic One with George Benson, who has forthrightly addressed
his pop output in interviews. Benson makes a clear difference between his
pop-focused, mostly-vocal-with-some-guitar, records, and his jazz, guitar-
in-the-foreground, music. I personally hate Benson's pop music, but I
respect him as a person for having the integrity to not try to spread his
jazz props over to a music that does not deserve it.
Whereas G coyly allows the industry, and the record-buying public, to
call him a jazzman, and to label his output as jazz. Which pollutes the
name space (forgive the computer jargon) big time. I have met several
young(er than me) hip-hop fans who were very negative on jazz because
all they knew was, jazz was G and Najee. A couple hours of Lee Morgan
and Art Blakey and Sonny Rollins and Philly Joe Jones and John Coltrane
and Amina Claudine Myers had these B-Boys stomping the blues, but I shudder
to think how many others are out there mentally equating "jazz" with
limp-dick G LiquiShit(TM.)
So I think that yes, G is evil, and yes, we should actually make an effort
to counter-label his crap as not-jazz.
--
Marcel-Franck Simon Hewlett Packard
"Papa Loko, ou se' van, wa pouse'-n ale' Florham Park, NJ
Nou se' papiyon, n'a pote' nouvel bay Agwe'" min...@fpk.hp.com
Marcel-Franck Simon
: Many people that used to listen to swing hated bebop, but bop worked its way
: into "real" jazz as we know it. I hope that in 10 years, somebody doesn't
: say, "Aw, look at those stupid old bluenote discussions on Deja. That Adam
: Bravo guy that hated Kenny G was such a dweeb." Although this time around, a
: lot more people agree with me that Kenny is decidedly "dweebish."
The difference was that swing and bebop were both jazz musics, in that
their adherents approached music with the same mindset of discovery and
reinvention. Whereas G neither does nor intends any such thing.
Marcel-Franck Simon
: There have been various levels of expertise, but Clyde McCoy, Jimmy
: Lunceford, Paul Whiteman, Glenn Miller, Tommy Dorsey, Cab Calloway,
: Nat King Cole...the list is nearly endless...founded their careers on
: "smooth jazz".
I have NO idea what this means. If it's an attempt to link the Generic
One with an authentic Wild Showman like Calloway, or a great bandleader
like Lunceford, well you've blown my mind, Sabutin.
Let me just note that I think it's possible to make pop music so well-
crafted, or to interpret popular music (still in a pop vein) so
personally, as to touch on art. For instance, Cole's performances of
pop songs like "Mona Lisa" or "The Christmas Song" are so dead-on
perfect mixtures of earnestness and sardonic hipsterism that they've
become *the* standard approach to these songs. Sinatra found a similar,
world-weary loner, vein to mine.
A lot of pop is crappy ear candy. Pop isn't jazz. Classic pop finds
discreet ways to tug at the hearstrings, and does it so well that the
listener willingly allows himself to be manipulated. A lot of jazz is
crap. Classic jazz mainlines the player's emotions to direct-connect
with the listener's.
These statements aren't incompatible. Music is communication. Good music
in any genre is successful communication. Bad popular music is a case
of fooling many of the people much of the time.
Resist the hype.
KReilly
>with the listener's.
>
>Music is communication.
I found these comments interesting. Do they rest on an expressionist
understanding of art? How does music convey emotion from the artist to the
listener? I see it as analogous to the claim that a painter conveys emotion
through a painting. Theoretically this makes little sense to me unless the
artist and the viewer/listener are part of a larger community.
Richard Thurston
> So I think that yes, G is evil, (snip)
Well there you are. Hyperbole? Apparently not to some.
Glad to have Mr. G placed in perspective I was laboring under the
mistaken impression evil was something manifested by crimes such as
murder or rape. It seems 'evil' can also include marketing and
advertising and kitsch and entertainment and low-brow amusements.
--
Richard Thurston
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Genie Baker
KReilly <kre...@aol.com> wrote:
>How does music convey emotion from the artist to the
>listener?
This is a fascinating question to me -- something I've wondered about a
lot.
>I see it as analogous to the claim that a painter conveys emotion
>through a painting. Theoretically this makes little sense to me unless the
>artist and the viewer/listener are part of a larger community.
Yeah, and so you don't see much discussion of it in the theory books.
There's certainly something there, though. If you're the type who has
strong emotional responses to music, check in with other people. (Wow. I
picture a bar... "Yo Bubba, tell me how you're feeling..." There are
subtler ways.) What's remarkable is that the same emotional response will
be triggered in a lot of people from very different walks of life. (There
are some rmb'ers who are also extremely articulate about the "feel" they
hear; I've found myself laughing out loud after hearing a recording
they've described because they had captured it so well.)
I've wondered how much of this is socialization -- e.g., do minor keys
sound "sad" because we've been taught to hear them that way, or is this
some innate pre-socialized response? My memory is that the opposite is
true -- I remember my piano teacher's telling me (at 8 or so) that you
could tell major from minor by whether the piece sounded happy or sad (and
I know I experienced it that way, but perhaps 8 is already pretty old).
Anyway, I've thought about this a lot, have absolutely no answers, and
am very curious. Thanks for raising the question.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Baker gba...@umich.edu
Simon Weil
> This is a fascinating question to me -- something I've wondered about a
>lot.
>
>>I see it as analogous to the claim that a painter conveys emotion
>>through a painting. Theoretically this makes little sense to me unless the
>>artist and the viewer/listener are part of a larger community.
>
> Yeah, and so you don't see much discussion of it in the theory books.
>There's certainly something there, though. If you're the type who has
>strong emotional responses to music, check in with other people. (Wow. I
>picture a bar... "Yo Bubba, tell me how you're feeling..." There are
>subtler ways.) What's remarkable is that the same emotional response will
>be triggered in a lot of people from very different walks of life. (There
>are some rmb'ers who are also extremely articulate about the "feel" they
>hear; I've found myself laughing out loud after hearing a recording
>they've described because they had captured it so well.)
> I've wondered how much of this is socialization -- e.g., do minor keys
>sound "sad" because we've been taught to hear them that way, or is this
>some innate pre-socialized response? My memory is that the opposite is
>true -- I remember my piano teacher's telling me (at 8 or so) that you
>could tell major from minor by whether the piece sounded happy or sad (and
>I know I experienced it that way, but perhaps 8 is already pretty old).
> Anyway, I've thought about this a lot, have absolutely no answers, and
>am very curious. Thanks for raising the question.
Years and years ago I did some physiology courses at University and I was
struck how the way information is coded in the brain sometimes bears a certain
resemblance to music. Like the brain is basically loads and loads of nerve
cells interconnected and talking to each other the whole time. And the thing
they use to communicate with is nerve impulses - electrical signals passed from
one nerve to another (or others). What is striking is that you can sometimes
get trains of pulses at set frequencies - frequencies at the low end of the
audiory spectrum. What that means is you have a direct analogue for the
fundamental building block of music - the note - in the brain (i.e a train of
pulses at a set frequency). At the time, and being interested in rock, it
occurred to me that just about anybody could play three chords - like on Johnny
B. Goode - and excite a pretty large emotional response. I also noticed that it
was the movements from one chord to another and back again that produced the
response. It wasn't the note (or chord) in itself - but the *movement* that did
it. So my theory - and it's still my theory - is that somewhere inside the
brain emotion is coded in terms of the *difference* of rate of pulses along
nerves - and that the reason that something like the three chord trick works is
that it feeds straight into that. Whether it's true or not, the fact is there's
a direct analogue for the note in the brain - No other sense (visual, tactile
etc) has that sort of relationship and Music, by common consent, is the most
immediate Art there is. Coincidence?
Greensill
moods. It found out that if the interval between, say the hum of you fridge and
the whine of the microwave, was a minor third then that explained why you were
always depressed in your kitchen.
I believe it!
Mike Greensill
Marcel-Franck Simon
: >Classic jazz mainlines the player's emotions to direct-connect
: >with the listener's.
: >
: >Music is communication.
: I found these comments interesting. Do they rest on an expressionist
: understanding of art? How does music convey emotion from the artist to the
: listener? I see it as analogous to the claim that a painter conveys emotion
: through a painting. Theoretically this makes little sense to me unless the
: artist and the viewer/listener are part of a larger community.
Since you both posted this and emailed it to me, I'll also post my
reply to you:
It seems to me that you might have read my article and in particular
these quotes to mean that music communicates the player's emotions
to the listener's own. That's not what I meant. I wanted to say that
music is a non-verbal communications medium that taps directly into
emotions, both the player's and the listener's. Each may (is likely
to) have a different set of emotions.
As I see it, the process is: musicians play what they feel, listeners
feel what they hear. Each "translation" point (where feeling becomes
playing, where sound is heard, and then where it's felt), is one
where the "emotion flow" (if you will) gets distorted on its path
from player to listener.
Such distortion is neither good nor bad. It's the unavoidable byproduct
of our analog, imprecise human nature. Further along the process might
be the translation point where I describe to you my reaction to what
I just heard. I might fail completely to describe "accurately" my
emotive reaction to the music, and the way you process the info might
further "distort" it. But, if my intent was to get you excited enough
that you go listen to the record, and you do just that, I think it's
fair to say I succeeded "in the large" even though I failed "in the
small."
I suppose something similar happens in painting, and indeed in any
artistic endeavor. I further suppose you could say that art is
communication; I would not, because I don't know enough about art
to be so sweeping, though I am comfortable saying it about music.
Marcel-Franck Simon
: > So I think that yes, G is evil, (snip)
: Well there you are. Hyperbole? Apparently not to some.
Glad to help.
KReilly
writes:
> As I see it, the process is: musicians play what they feel, listeners
> feel what they hear. Each "translation" point (where feeling becomes
> playing, where sound is heard, and then where it's felt), is one
> where the "emotion flow" (if you will) gets distorted on its path
> from player to listener.
This makes sense, though I might not use the word "distorted." To open this up
more, one could situate both the performer and the listener in their respective
communities/traditions which in turn shape the way emotions are felt and
expressed.
KReilly
>sound "sad" because we've been taught to hear them that way, or is this
>some innate pre-socialized response?
I lean heavily towards the former, though as you point out there are some
things that seem to indicate the latter.
Richard Thurston
KReilly
Perhaps there are degrees of evil. To paraphrase an interesting dialogue from
"Broadcast News" between Albert Brooks and Holly Hunter: the devil isn't scary
with claws rather he looks like Kenny G and lowers people's standards.
Richard Thurston
particular brand of schlock as evil or somehow wicked or morally
inferior. Musically inferior certainly, but not morally.
I might suggest the argument that a contributor to 'lowering'
people's 'standards' might be the sort of overheated rhetoric which
allows one to toss terms like 'evil' about so offhandedly.
Cheapens the very word. Robs it of its real meaning and power.
Like Kenny and his saxophone does with music.
KReilly
>people's 'standards' might be the sort of overheated rhetoric which
>allows one to toss terms like 'evil' about so offhandedly.
>Cheapens the very word. Robs it of its real meaning and power.
>
>Like Kenny and his saxophone does with music.
I'm not sure I see the distinction between the former "lowering standards"
comment and your "cheapening" comment. I don't see Kenny G as morally evil but
I might be persuaded that he can have detrimental effects.
Michael Fitzgerald
>Different sounds are
>different things to different people, since the medieval ear liked a minor
>second, but not a perfect fifth. Then, the ancient music of some cultures
>relies on a perfect fifth. So, I don't believe that theorem. Sorry.
OK, what is your source for the minor second/perfect fifth statement?
It is apparent in my study of plainchant that the accepted notes for
the finalis were first the unison, then the octave, then the perfect
fifth. I have never found use of the minor second anywhere.
Mike
Adam Bravo
different things to different people, since the medieval ear liked a minor
second, but not a perfect fifth. Then, the ancient music of some cultures
relies on a perfect fifth. So, I don't believe that theorem. Sorry.
"Greensill" <gree...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000724160539...@ng-fp1.aol.com...
Bruce LeClaire
KReilly wrote:
>
> >Glad to have Mr. G placed in perspective I was laboring under the
> >mistaken impression evil was something manifested by crimes....
>
> Perhaps there are degrees of evil. To paraphrase an interesting dialogue from
> "Broadcast News" between Albert Brooks and Holly Hunter: the devil isn't scary
> with claws rather he looks like Kenny G and lowers people's standards.
And since George Burns died, it looks as if God decided to let the devil
have at us!
--Bruce
Tom Walls
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
Joe Finn
>
> And since George Burns died, it looks as if God decided to let the devil
> have at us!
>
From time to time different people have tried to bring jazz to a wider audience. In
doing so they inevitably dilute and pollute the style to the point where the true
aficionados cry "foul". Mr. Gorelick will not be the last in this long parade. He
was not the first.
In a paradoxical way we may actually owe these pretenders a debt of gratitude. They
help us to understand what jazz really is because they show us what it most
certainly is not......joe
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Simon Weil
>Interesting post. Thanks, Barry!
Lot more ambitious than anything I'd dare put my name to. The guy had chutzpah.
But it does make a kind of sense. It's reminiscent of the Golden number. Isn't
there an Ornette/Charlie Haden recording based around that?
Adam Bravo
"Michael Fitzgerald" <fitz...@eclipse.net> wrote in message
news:3dupns8es9vjaha06...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:55:33 GMT, "Adam Bravo" <ad...@home.com> wrote:
> >Different sounds are
> >different things to different people, since the medieval ear liked a
minor
> >second, but not a perfect fifth. Then, the ancient music of some cultures
> >relies on a perfect fifth. So, I don't believe that theorem. Sorry.
>
Michael Fitzgerald
>You know, I might have been mixing that up with the augmented 4th.
The augmented fourth???? "Diabolus in musica"!!! Never never never
ever.
The consonant intervals were: perfect octave, perfect fifth, then
major and minor thirds, and their inversions - minor and major sixths.
The dissonant intervals were: major and minor seconds, major and minor
sevenths and the tritone (augmented fourth or diminished fifth).
The perfect fourth floated between consonance and dissonance. At the
time of Leonin it was considered stable but eventually became thought
of as dissonant and was avoided as a point of rest.
Mike
Richard Thurston
min...@fpk.hp.com (Marcel-Franck Simon) wrote:
>
> Since you both posted this and emailed it to me, I'll also post my
> reply to you:
>
> It seems to me that you might have read my article and in
particular
> these quotes to mean that music communicates the player's
emotions
> to the listener's own. That's not what I meant. I wanted to say that
> music is a non-verbal communications medium that taps directly
into
> emotions, both the player's and the listener's. Each may (is likely
> to) have a different set of emotions.
That's what makes it so very satisfying. I have talked to artists and
musicians about just this very subject and one of the things that
often can make an artist excited is evoking an emotion rather
contrary or unexpected. A successful work of art or piece of music
works on a variety of levels. Two listeners have very different takes
on a given piece and they both would be 'right'.
>
> As I see it, the process is: musicians play what they feel,
listeners
> feel what they hear. Each "translation" point (where feeling
becomes
> playing, where sound is heard, and then where it's felt), is one
> where the "emotion flow" (if you will) gets distorted on its path
> from player to listener.
>
> Such distortion is neither good nor bad. It's the unavoidable
byproduct
> of our analog, imprecise human nature.
And it makes the whole exercise worthwhile in my opinion. The
collision between between how something may have been
intended and how it was actually received can often create a very
satisfying tension.
Further along the process might
> be the translation point where I describe to you my reaction to
what
> I just heard. I might fail completely to describe "accurately" my
> emotive reaction to the music, and the way you process the info
might
> further "distort" it. But, if my intent was to get you excited enough
> that you go listen to the record, and you do just that, I think it's
> fair to say I succeeded "in the large" even though I failed "in the
> small."
Also, it becomes very difficult to describe, say a painting, verbally
when the original transaction is visual. The same could hold true
for music. Music could certainly be considered a 'language' but it is
a far different sort of language than one we concern ourselves with
through speech.
>
> I suppose something similar happens in painting, and indeed in
any
> artistic endeavor. I further suppose you could say that art is
> communication; I would not,
You should. It does.
because I don't know enough about art
> to be so sweeping, though I am comfortable saying it about
music.
Good post. Gave me somethings to chew over.
David Hall
There's maths involved of course. I'm always amazed at how few people
realise the following, even talented musicians (I suppose if you feel it you
don't have to know it):
Octave = 12 semitones = 2^(12/12) = 2 i.e. 2:1 ratio
Fifth = 7 semitones = 2^(7/12) = 1.49 i.e. 3:2 ratio
Fourth = 5 semitones = 2^(5/12) = 1.33 i.e. 4:3 ratio
Major third = 4 semitones = 2^(4/12) = 1.26 i.e. 5:4 ratio
Minor third = 3 semitones = 2^(3/12) = 1.19 i.e. 6:5 ratio
You can work them all out if you like but the point is that the more basic
the ratio, the fewer cycles the waves must go through before they fall in
sync, and hence the more consonant.
This doesn't in any way elucidate our emotional response to music, the best
account of which that I have read is that in Shopenhauer's "The World as
Will and Representation." I don't have a copy close to hand but the moment
I find one I'll post up a passage. Until then I'll leave you with the
question:
What is music if not feeling?
Dave.
David Hall
Art is more than just communication. By definition.
I used to ask myself when listening to classical music, "who am I
communicating with: is it the composer, the conductor, the soloist?" The
answer, I discovered, is none of the above. You are communicating with
yourself. Let me explain: music is an abstract art, it has no material or
objective meaning (unless it has lyrics, but that's another thing), so when
you identify a feeling in it, that feeling was already inside you, the music
just flicked the right switch -- I don't think I've ever had that mood
indigo, but when I hear the tune I identify with that very mood. It is
enjoyable, not because we are moral creatures and we like to pity the poor
musician playing the blues up there, but because when we hear the music we
magically see a part of ourselves and comprehend the incomprehensible: we
become united with our inner nature.
A musician is a person blessed with the gift to taste a feeling and know
instinctively how it was made, and to be able to tell the recipe to anyone
who can listen, so that they can make that feeling inside them for
themselves. In this way it will not be identical in everyone, but the
similarities in our response show we're all cooking with the same utensils
(if you'll forgive me overworking the metaphor).
So music is not exactly the communication of emotion. It is the sharing of
a recipe or a code that produces that emotion.
...in my humble opinion.
Dave
Michael Fitzgerald
<rept...@nireland.com> wrote:
>There's maths involved of course. I'm always amazed at how few people
>realise the following, even talented musicians (I suppose if you feel it you
>don't have to know it):
>
>Octave = 12 semitones = 2^(12/12) = 2 i.e. 2:1 ratio
>Fifth = 7 semitones = 2^(7/12) = 1.49 i.e. 3:2 ratio
>Fourth = 5 semitones = 2^(5/12) = 1.33 i.e. 4:3 ratio
>Major third = 4 semitones = 2^(4/12) = 1.26 i.e. 5:4 ratio
>Minor third = 3 semitones = 2^(3/12) = 1.19 i.e. 6:5 ratio
>
>You can work them all out if you like but the point is that the more basic
>the ratio, the fewer cycles the waves must go through before they fall in
>sync, and hence the more consonant.
Well, yes, this is the overtone series, which every brass player deals
with all the time. I don't know any musicians who aren't aware of it.
But it doesn't explain why the fourth was considered a dissonance -
the reasoning being that it "needed" to resolve to a third - when the
third is a less stable interval (further along) in the harmonic
series. That seems to "go against nature."
Mike
Michael Fitzgerald
wrote:
>I must say though, that his books (actually lecture notes) are not well written.
>He may have been more clear when speaking, but it became obvious to me that he
>could have stated the basis of his system in a better way. I believe the fact
>that he was a Russian writing in English has something to do with it. It took me
>many rereads to finally get the big picture. Not many people are willing to do
>that. This may be another factor in the demise of the Schillinger system, but
>one that can be corrected by say, a Real Schillinger Book, or Schillinger for
>Dummies or something.
Well, the basic problem with the Schillinger System is that
Schillinger died before he could answer everyone's questions about the
books.
Apart from Gershwin and Miller, In the jazz world, the system was
studied by Muhal Richard Abrams, Hobart Dotson, Benny Goodman, and
Gigi Gryce - probably more. I wonder if the film guys like Oliver
Nelson, J.J. Johnson, Quincy Jones, Benny Carter and others studied.
I have just recently been checking out the 2 volume "Schillinger
System of Musical Composition" and it's wonderful. Wish someone would
help make it more accessible because I really don't believe it's
useless or just a fad.
Mike
Adam Bravo
DISSONANCE!!!!!!!!!!!! (Some)Baroque and medieval music players would never
dream of ending a song with a minor chord, they would switch it to a major.
Most of us modern people have no problem playing a minor chord as the end of
a song. Also, a lot of it has to do with the timbre of the instruments. What
instrument do you know where you can put it through an FFT processor and get
it tuned to the exact millihertz? What instrument puts out a perfect sound
wave. What concert acoustic environment is a free field and has no late
reflections, etc. You are not going to sway me on this issue.
"Michael Fitzgerald" <fitz...@eclipse.net> wrote in message
news:dfvtnscod249e708k...@4ax.com...
Michael Fitzgerald
>Okay, you guys- THERE IS NO RELATION BETWEEN PHYSICS AND CONSONANCE AND
>DISSONANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, absolute statements like that are ridiculous. Please do some
more homework because there clearly IS a relation. There may be some
discrepancies that are not easily explained but to deny any
correlation is just plain ignorant.
Mike
David Hall
>stronger the consonance, but 'falling in sync' may be irrelevant. From some
>experiments in the lab, I found that I could reproduce square waves,
triangles
>and sawtooths (sawteeth?) by combining the appropriate frequencies in the
>appropriate magnitudes. I found it impossible (using the analog techniques
I had
>at the time) to synchronize the waveforms, so they didn't look square or
>triangular on the scope, but they nonetheless sound like actual square,
triangle
>or sawtooth waves. I conclude that the human ear (at least my human ear)
can't
>hear phase relationships, but can hear the combined frequencies as one.
Surely, in a harmony, the waves combine to form a new waveform; if the
initial waves come in sync every 2 or 3 revolutions, as opposed to 6 or
however many more, the resultant waveform is simpler; this close
relationship therefore affects the quality of the wave, which we register as
consonance. Consonance or dissonance is therefore similar to timbre in the
way we register it.
Just a thought. I'm anything but an expert in the field.
Dave.
Bruce LeClaire
Michael Fitzgerald wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:43:11 +0100, "David Hall"
> <rept...@nireland.com> wrote:
> >There's maths involved of course. I'm always amazed at how few people
> >realise the following, even talented musicians (I suppose if you feel it you
> >don't have to know it):
> >
> >Octave = 12 semitones = 2^(12/12) = 2 i.e. 2:1 ratio
> >Fifth = 7 semitones = 2^(7/12) = 1.49 i.e. 3:2 ratio
> >Fourth = 5 semitones = 2^(5/12) = 1.33 i.e. 4:3 ratio
> >Major third = 4 semitones = 2^(4/12) = 1.26 i.e. 5:4 ratio
> >Minor third = 3 semitones = 2^(3/12) = 1.19 i.e. 6:5 ratio
> >
> >You can work them all out if you like but the point is that the more basic
> >the ratio, the fewer cycles the waves must go through before they fall in
> >sync, and hence the more consonant.
>
> Well, yes, this is the overtone series, which every brass player deals
> with all the time. I don't know any musicians who aren't aware of it.
> But it doesn't explain why the fourth was considered a dissonance -
> the reasoning being that it "needed" to resolve to a third - when the
> third is a less stable interval (further along) in the harmonic
> series. That seems to "go against nature."
>
[Part I. Tunings]
Actually, David's post isn't about the overtone (aka harmonic) series
exactly, but rather about the frequency relations of the notes making up
various intervals. He uses the even-tempered scale to determine
frequency relations (thus the powers of 2 to a multiple of 1/12) but
also writes out the approximate ratios of these intervals from the
Ptolemaic tuning (or just intonation, which tends to focus on tuning the
3th's in a major triad). There are other systems, such as Pythagorean
(which focuses on tuning 4th's and 5th's), etc. See the following
pages:
http://www.hlalapansi.demon.co.uk/Acoustics/MusicMaths/MusicMaths.html
http://home.att.net/~microtonal/scales.html
http://www.needhamia.com/tunesing/
The subject of tunings gets very complicated, even dizzying, and the
even-tempered scale in use today is probably the best overall compromise
(evenly dividing the chromatic steps in a log scale). Of course, it is
an artifical system not found in nature, which is one reason it's so
hard to play a saxophone precisely in tune, and might account for why
concert violinists tend to favor Pythagorean tunings.
The study of psycho-acoustics is fascinating - and involves both
physics, math, physiology and psychology. But the net, and this
newsgroup in particular, is not the place to study this material in
depth. That won't stop me from writing about it nevertheless!
Two nice introductory texts are (I've read the first, and heard about
the second).
"The Science of Sound"
by Thomas D. Rossing, Addison-Wesley (1990)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201157276/qid=964626523/sr=1-4/104-3935388-6848744
"The Physics and Psychophysics of Music : An Introduction"
by Juan G. Roederer, pringer Verlag (1995)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0387943668/qid=964626320/sr=1-3/104-3935388-6848744
[Part II. Consonance and Dissonance]
Now, what I read in Rossing's book (and some others) about the
consonance and dissonance of intervals involves an analysis of the
overtones of the two notes making up the intervals. I'll try to do a
somewhat accurate thumbnail sketch:
1) First consider two pure sine waves of two frequencies, f1 and f2, and
let df := f2 - f1. If the freqs are close enough the two sine waves are
heard as one tone. If the two freqs are sufficiently far apart the two
sine waves are heard as two separate tones. If the two freqs are
in-between these conditions (close, but not close enough), they are
heard either as one tone with beats (|df| < ~15 Hz regardless of f1), or
as one tone with a measure of "roughness". There is a tendency to hear
this as tension, needing resolve.
The region of freqs where the notes fight each other is often referred
to as the critical region. The critical bandwidth, CB, is defined as
the max |df| before one hears two distinct tones (CB is a function of
f1, it increases as f1 increases). As a rough estimate, maximal
dissonance is obtained when df = 0.25*CB. The interested reader is
referred to the work of Plomp & Levelt from the Netherlands, or of
Kameoka & Kuriyagowa from Japan, both of which are cited in Rossing's
book.
2) Now consider two notes played on an instrument like a guitar or
piano. Each note can be (Fourier) decomposed into a lowest freq (this
being the name of the note) and all its overtones. Without going into
the details, the amount of consonance or dissonance in an interval can
be gauged by the number of overtones of one note which fall into the
critical regions of the overtones of the other note. The basic idea is
that there is a psycho-acoustic criterium for tension based on Fourier
analysis.
Two last interesting facts to note, this line of thinking was originated
by the great physicist/early music researcher, Helmholtz. Additionally,
the human ear itself essentially does a Fourier decomposition when it
turns sound waves into nerve signals.
3) Of course, the degree that this tension is, in turn, considered
pleasing, and the amount that it is utilized or sought out by certain
individuals is a subject beyond this relatively simple analysis. In
fact, quoting from Rossing...
"It certainly should not be implied that consonant intervals are good
and dissonant intervals are bad. Music written with consonant intervals
alone would be exceedingly dull, musicians make a clear distinction
between pleasantness and consonance. Sixths (5:3, 8:5) and thirds (5:4,
6:5) are generally found to be pleasant intervals, as are the fourth
(5:4) and minor seventh (9:5), though some of these intervals are not
particularly consonant."
See also:
Roberts, L. A. (1986) "Consonance Judgements of Musical Chords by
Musicians and Untrained Listeners" Acustica 62:163.
BTW- Rossing lists the intervals, in decreasing order of consonance as
Octave P5 P4 M6 M3 m6 m3
2:1 3:2 4:3 5:3 5:4 8:5 6:5
--Bruce