Do Box Sets Take The Fun Out?
Glenn Wilson
collecting a certain artist's recorded output, mostly starting with box
sets. Don't misunderstand - I think these box sets are great. I own a few
myself, although it's mostly stuff I didn't have on LP. I'm just thinking
back fondly on my youth and remembering how big a deal it was to go buy a
new LP. I would scour the bins for hours to come up with some gem that I
didn't have, then play it to death til I wore it out. Every record was it's
own entity and existed on it's own merit. Not to mention the great cover
art, etc.
I guess this is no different than the 78 days when one would purchase a
song! I'm sure guys older than me remember running to the store to get the
latest release by whomever.
I'm just imagining Rick sitting there with all this music, all properly
catalogued (for the most part) with outtakes, etc. For me, as a musician, I
would be overwhelmed and I don't think I would get the same value from the
music as I did when I purchased everything separately.
Again, I'm not putting down any of these sets. I think for the most part,
it's good for jazz to have it all available in any format.
Just wondering if anyone else who has collected LPs is feeling this way.
I also think it's another sign that no one is buying jazz, that they have to
put together the boxes for the aficionados because they know we'll pay for
it, but they couldn't sell the CDs as separate entities.
Just some thoughts!
Glenn
CineStudy
This is just a little note of what I am going through. I am lucky enough to
buy these boxes and this is what I find interesting. First I can play these
set's in my office as I work and in my car as I sit in traffic. Many tracks are
repeated takes which mean repeated listening experience. Second in the old
record buying days, which I went through with rock, I was fed by the radio.
Then when I liked something I would go out and but it. With these sets I listen
to a large volume of music and then in the evening I may choose a few choice
selection thatwere inspired by the days listening. Now you may question why not
still listen to the radio. Simply it doesn't feed my consistent interest. As I
listen to Monk on the Riverside Box, I hear Rollin's, now I can go home tonight
and put on Sax Colossus. Because on the Riverside I heard him wail. Last night
I was able to discover Coltrane threw the Impulse set and learn in a different
way about Pray, which will now make me want to go out and buy the complete CD
sometime. We are in a different world, just as we are communicating now. I read
in The New York Times today that collage kids don't even buy CD's they are
downloading and burning everything on CD on MP3. Well if that's the way there
going to find out about Monk, Jerry Lee Lewis or Gould, that's the future. The
Village Vanguard recording of Coltrane started for me, hearing different
versions on different evening of the same recordings, it worked now I'm hooked.
The days of radio,78's,LP's are long gone, so are many of the great artist we
admire. I am lucky to be able to learn this way and I do play certain CDs over
and over again. So I have to say these boxes offer a consistency of challenge
to learn about the artist. Is this way for everybody? The answer is no? Is
building a collection of boxes along with CD's right for me? The answer is Yes.
Rick
CineStudy
Rick >>
I meant classic twenty-four hour radio that I can get.
Rick
Peter J King
I'm a little wary of boxed sets, but for a slightly different reason, I
think. When I buy a single album, I listen to it with more focus, and get
more out of it, than when I buy a number of albums at once (whether in a
box or not). When the albums are by different
musicians/composers/groups/etc., the effect is less pronounced, of course
(pronounced "uv kors").
Peter J. King
(There's a Doonesbury cartoon in which the rock star Thudpucker, a
multi-millionaire, has taken up collecting stamps -- his method is to
'phone his dealer and order complete countries at a time...)
--
| <http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0337> |
| Philosophy resources & much more. |
| Join the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail: |
| <http://www.cauce.org/index.html> |
PAUL MACCA
>I also think it's another sign that no one is buying jazz, that they have >to
>put together the boxes for the aficionados because they know we'll pay >for
>it, but they couldn't sell the CDs as separate entities.
No, I don't think so. Among both contemporary artists and those from the past,
the single album CDs continue to make up the bulk of sales. Why do I say this?
First off, most artists who are still active but who do not have a huge back
catalog don't have box sets simply because there's they haven't recorded a
whole lot. Second, even among artists who have been around awhile and have a
sufficient amount of recorded material, their commercial appeal isn't such that
a box set would be economically feasible. [Not every popular jazz artist today
would be able to sell their alternate takes or outtakes. For example, I don't
think that most of Keiko Matsui's following are fanatical enough to want her
alternate takes. If there are, they are so few in number that a commericially
released box set would not make much money.]
Even among "classic" artists, vast majority of it is sold as single CDs. For
example, I don't think Bobby Hutcherson, Ramsey Lewis, or Johnny Lytle have box
sets. (They might have a 2 disc "Best of" compilation, but I don't believe
those guys have a huge 8 or 12 disc "The Complete Blue Note" or anything
similar to that magnitude.)
It's only among those artists who are legendary and have fanatical collectors
(who want every single take, including takes that were aborted by someone
farting.) Guys like Coltrane, Evans, Bird, Miles. But as many CDs as those
guys continue to sell, they don't hold a 100% monopoly on all jazz sales. A
significant percentage are from those aforementioned musicians (past and
present) who don't have box sets.
Steve Mack
> Glenn,
> This is just a little note of what I am going through. I am lucky enough to
> buy these boxes and this is what I find interesting. First I can play these
> set's in my office as I work and in my car as I sit in traffic. Many tracks are
> repeated takes which mean repeated listening experience.
This is actually what I hate about boxed sets, is the repeated tracks of the same
song. There was a Charlie Parker set I was gonna get until I saw how many repeated
takes there are. I mean, Confirmation is a good song, but I don't need to hear it
six times in a row to know that.
> sometime. We are in a different world, just as we are communicating now. I read
> in The New York Times today that collage kids don't even buy CD's they are
> downloading and burning everything on CD on MP3. Well if that's the way there
> going to find out about Monk, Jerry Lee Lewis or Gould, that's the future.
Well, I'm a college kid, and I buy CDs. In fact, for some reason, I not only don't
buy boxed sets, I don't buy compilations either. One pride of mine is that I have
over twenty Mingus CDs and not a single identical track on any two.
I think I like individual albums more because they give more of a sense of a live
set, which is the way all music (especially jazz) is meant to be enjoyed. I don't
know; I guess to each his own.
--
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
Michael Fitzgerald
<shil...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>I'm a little wary of boxed sets, but for a slightly different reason, I
>think. When I buy a single album, I listen to it with more focus, and get
>more out of it, than when I buy a number of albums at once (whether in a
>box or not). When the albums are by different
>musicians/composers/groups/etc., the effect is less pronounced, of course
It seems you are letting things determine your listening that you
don't have to. *You* can decide to put the CD on 'repeat' and listen
again and again to a single track (or set of tracks). You can program
it however you want. You can play dictator via remote. Or you can just
lazily toss in disc after disc and then complain. But the 'lack of
focus' is down to you, I think, not the set or even how you purchase.
As for me, I prefer to own the boxed set so that I can pinpoint
specific tracks - I tend to listen to my sets purposefully a lot. Or I
will just toss in a disc and hit 'random' - but that's just for
recreational listening. If I *want* to hear something, I make sure
that that's what I hear. I don't let anything get in the way of that.
It's not that much more difficult to program a CD to play an "album"
than it is to place a tonearm and get up 20 minutes later to do it
again.
The pinpointing thing happens with Lp's too, btw, even though it's not
that easy to do it (especially across several records). However, it's
rarer with cassettes. Those end up being played start to finish (and
then again) in the car, mostly.
Mike
Bruce LeClaire
Michael Fitzgerald wrote:
>
>> Peter J King wrote:
>> I'm a little wary of boxed sets, but for a slightly different reason, I
>> think. When I buy a single album, I listen to it with more focus, and get
>
> It seems you are letting things determine your listening that you
> don't have to. *You* can decide to put the CD on 'repeat' and listen
> again and again to a single track (or set of tracks). You can program
------------
I. Playlists
------------
I've commented on this before, but no matter how you slice it,
reprogramming is a pain. Unless you're really digging into a song or
decidedly studying the artist most people put on a cd/lp/cassette for
the listening experience. Repeated tracks are typically non-optimal for
most people in this situation. Now, it might not be so bad if your CD
player can memorize a playlist for a given CD (keying off CD id like
CDDB does), then you need only program it once. Real Jukebox can do
this via playlists, but how many home players can?
-------------------------------
II. The Album Concept is dead!
-------------------------------
Long live the new Concept! (Ummm, what is it?)
Now here's something that might be of historical note. As Glenn noted,
recorded music essentially began with the 78. Which meant that the
concept was a hit on one side and a flip side with more experimental
material (or less commercial, or just plain less good). Then came the
10-inch, and finally the 12-inch LP format. [I might have some of this
wrong.] Now the 10-inch EP failed to really introduce a new concept, it
was mostly stapled together 78's. But the 12-inch LP, with it's 40
minutes or so of music, allowed a new concept to develop, that of the
concept album. Song lengths could stretch, extend to different lengths,
and flow into each other. At long last the artist could somehow tie the
entire album together within some abstract, thematic, artistic or even
commercial framework.
"Kind of Blue" is a classic example of this, organized along the music
abstraction of modal playing. "A Love Supreme" is another, with it's
theme of spirituality. The Ella Fitzgerald Songbook series is yet
another example of this concept. Sometimes the concept could be less
obvious, and might just involve taking a snapshot of a band at a
particular point in its development (many, many Blue Note albums come to
mind). Another example of a concept album might involve forming a band
out of highly creative musicians who otherwise might not work together
(Duke and Trane, Hartman and Trane, Duke+Mingus+Roach with "Money
Jungle"). Somehow the match of creative output with 40 minutes seems to
work, or perhaps the matchup is between the listeners ability to focus
on a recording and a time length of 40 minutes. [Aside- who could
actually attend a college-level lecture and still pay serious attention
after 40-50 minutes, please raise your hand.]
The next stage in musical development is the CD, which allows up to 70
minutes of recorded music/side. And I claim, for some reason, that most
artists cannot maintain a common theme for this duration of time.
Perhaps this is due to their output and the time allotted them for
integrating this output (typically 1 year or less for a popular
artist). Perhaps this is due to the listening audience and divorced
from the artist. But I think not, I really think ideas map more
naturally to a LP length than a CD. Admittedly exceptions exist
("Electric Ladyland", but that involved extended jams, "Tommy" and "JC
Superstar" each of which has obvious filler, what about double-LP jazz
releases? And yes, I agree, the concept album was much abused in
Rock.)
And so, I pose the question, have CD's killed the concept album? Has
the pressure to release > 60 minutes of music forced many artists to
resort to filler or otherwise extraneous songs? In reference to
re-releases, alternate takes naturally serve a very useful role here.
But note that many current releases find artists deliberately scaling
back the CD length in order to preserve the album's quality. Of course,
the concept album isn't really dead (Bridgewater's Silver tribute album
comes to mind), but even Douglas's Shorter and Little tribute albums
have but three cover songs on each.
Personally, I like to think that the artist really put some thought into
organizing the album release. While acknowledging the naïveté of
ignoring the influence of the producer, I do find that some of the most
enjoyable albums in my collection seem to have songs that naturally
match and flow into each other, as the artist planned them to do. And I
think that such an album concept naturally maps into a 40 minute time
span better than a 70 minute one.
Today we have mp3 format and instant release via internet distribution.
As to the future of the music form, I invite discussion.
--Bruce
PS- How is all that relevant to boxed sets? Well, the coherence of an
individual album is diluted by sheer volume of material, inclusion of
studio chatter, and alternate takes. Additionally, boxed sets tend to
be organized chronologically, whereas albums are sometimes mixtures of
different sessions (which are sometimes even done like that according to
the artist's wishes and not the producers).
V
original releases in the pre-LP era such as Billie's 1933-41; Pop's Hot 5 or 7;
Ellington's 1920's, 1930's, 1940's; Sinatra/Dorsey etc.. I'm less fond of Box Sets
when they contain an artist's original LPs. I rather have the individual Coltranes
on Atlantic or Impulse for instance, because each one has it's own personality. And
it's inexcusable when original LPs are broken up and/or not contained on the same
CD.
Dan Given
>
> And so, I pose the question, have CD's killed the concept album? Has
> the pressure to release > 60 minutes of music forced many artists to
> resort to filler or otherwise extraneous songs? In reference to
> re-releases, alternate takes naturally serve a very useful role here.
> But note that many current releases find artists deliberately scaling
> back the CD length in order to preserve the album's quality. Of course,
> the concept album isn't really dead (Bridgewater's Silver tribute album
> comes to mind), but even Douglas's Shorter and Little tribute albums
> have but three cover songs on each.
>
> Personally, I like to think that the artist really put some thought into
> ignoring the influence of the producer, I do find that some of the most
> enjoyable albums in my collection seem to have songs that naturally
> match and flow into each other, as the artist planned them to do. And I
> think that such an album concept naturally maps into a 40 minute time
> span better than a 70 minute one.
>
> Today we have mp3 format and instant release via internet distribution.
> As to the future of the music form, I invite discussion.
This has nothing to do with jazz, but I was watching an interview with
Lou Reed on CNN this past weekend (which seems like a strange place to
be watching him, not that I think about it) where he was discussing his
new album, and basically saying just what you have said here. He was
talking about how his album is very precisely crafted to follow a
specific progression, and people who make compilation tapes, download
specific songs off the web, or even use them for mixing, really will
never understand what he is trying to say. He is the professional, who
has spent his life making music, and all the 'kids' who try to reprogram
his music are fools. He did imply that it wasn't just him -- all good
musicians have a plan for an album, so don't mess with it.
Dan
Scott P Gotschall
availability of box sets. First, it offers the instant introduction to various
artists. One of my first CD purchases (single or otherwise!) was Rollins'
Riverside collection. It was wonderful to not only hear so much Rollins, but so
many other great artists at the same time. Also, I do believe it's important to
note that the liners of many of these box sets offer a whole lot of information
not otherwise available to the "collector". Although secondary, this info. often
provides insight to dates and tunes in a historical perspective that is not
presented on the single.
- Scott
"H. Loess" wrote:
> "Glenn Wilson" <glenn....@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >I've been reading the posts from Rick (CineStudy) and lots of others about
> >collecting a certain artist's recorded output, mostly starting with box
> >sets. Don't misunderstand - I think these box sets are great. I own a few
> >myself, although it's mostly stuff I didn't have on LP.
>
> Well, these are two different points of view. The box set is a different
> animal to those of us who have absorbed this music over two or three decades
> (I'm coming up on three; I know there are many here who have a decade (or
> two or three) on that) than it is to one just discovering this music. I
> agree that something (something for which I share your feeling) is lost in
> first approaching this material via the box set; I'm just not sure how
> relevant the advantages of discovering this music in the LP era are to the
> issue of where best to start in the CD era.
>
> > I'm just thinking
> >back fondly on my youth and remembering how big a deal it was to go buy a
> >new LP. I would scour the bins for hours to come up with some gem that I
> >didn't have, then play it to death til I wore it out.
>
> Of course, one can still obsess over a particular track or session within
> the box. The advantage of acquiring the box is that the other sessions won't
> become unavailable by the time you're ready to move on.
>
> >Every record was it's own entity and existed on it's own merit.
>
> Very true, but decades later, less a concern. Some stand on their own and
> still offer something in that form that they don't as part of a box. Some
> have more to offer within the larger context. Again, those of us who came to
> these during the LP era can mentally segregate the boxed material. In either
> case, we can never experience these albums as people did when they were
> first issued, speaking to their day.
>
> >Not to mention the great cover art, etc.
>
> Agreed, the physicality of the LP is lost in this era, but that doesn't
> enter into the box vs. single CD question.
>
> >I guess this is no different than the 78 days when one would purchase a
> >song! I'm sure guys older than me remember running to the store to get the
> >latest release by whomever.
>
> This is my point; those of us who came to this music in the LP era could
> never hear these tracks as they sounded to their first purchasers. I can
> barely begin to imagine what Monk's "Evidence" sounded like in '48, on 78,
> as an entity unto itself.
>
> (I also sometimes wonder what Miles' "He Loved Him Madly, parts 1-8" would
> have sounded like then were we able to master it onto four 78s and deliver
> it there via time machine.)
>
> >I'm just imagining Rick sitting there with all this music, all properly
> >catalogued (for the most part) with outtakes, etc. For me, as a musician, I
> >would be overwhelmed and I don't think I would get the same value from the
> >music as I did when I purchased everything separately.
>
> No, but your appreciation was gained not just across albums, but across
> decades. I don't know whether it is possible to *discover* this music (whose
> historical context has also changed) in just the way we did, but I do think
> that it is still best appreciated over time in the larger context. (And I
> still remember how, when I had dozens of albums by each major artist still
> to come to terms with, and wanted properly to come to each in turn, as you
> suggest, I unfailingly chose to buy the one which would remain in print,
> passing up the one which would soon become unavailable in any form for 10-15
> years (or more).)
>
> >Again, I'm not putting down any of these sets. I think for the most part,
> >it's good for jazz to have it all available in any format.
>
> Ultimately, I think this is the most important thing.
>
> >Just wondering if anyone else who has collected LPs is feeling this way.
>
> Certainly, but it isn't 1923, 1948, or 1971; I'm not sure those of us who
> know best what is lost of our experience necessarily know how best to start
> today.
>
>
> --
> Henry L.
> hlo...@pipeline.com
--
http://www.music.indiana.edu/som/jazz/
"If Man is the tonic and God the dominant, the Devil is certainly
the sub-dominant and Woman is the relative minor."
- Samuel Butler
Murphy McMahon
news:390F7175...@mindspring.com...
> Admittedly exceptions exist
> ("Electric Ladyland", but that involved extended jams, "Tommy" and "JC
> Superstar" each of which has obvious filler, what about double-LP jazz
> releases? And yes, I agree, the concept album was much abused in
> Rock.)
Great (non concept album) double LPs:
Bitches Brew
Rahsaan - Bright Moments [live]
Coltrane - Afro Blue Impressions [live]
Allman Bros. at Fillmore East [live]
Zeppelin - Physical Graffiti
The Band - Rock Of Ages [live]
Beatles - White Album
--
Murph
Alan Lawrence
opportunity to "own it all". But, I must admit that while I love sets like
the complete Coltrane Quartet sessions, I truly miss being able to pull out
A Love Supreme and hearing that album and only that album. It's a great 32
minutes of music that can get lost in the boxed sets.
"Glenn Wilson" <glenn....@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:8enedi$4vg$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> I've been reading the posts from Rick (CineStudy) and lots of others about
> collecting a certain artist's recorded output, mostly starting with box
> sets. Don't misunderstand - I think these box sets are great. I own a
few
> myself, although it's mostly stuff I didn't have on LP. I'm just thinking
> back fondly on my youth and remembering how big a deal it was to go buy a
> new LP. I would scour the bins for hours to come up with some gem that I
> didn't have, then play it to death til I wore it out. Every record was
it's
> own entity and existed on it's own merit. Not to mention the great cover
> art, etc.
>
> I guess this is no different than the 78 days when one would purchase a
> song! I'm sure guys older than me remember running to the store to get
the
> latest release by whomever.
>
> I'm just imagining Rick sitting there with all this music, all properly
> catalogued (for the most part) with outtakes, etc. For me, as a musician,
I
> would be overwhelmed and I don't think I would get the same value from the
> music as I did when I purchased everything separately.
>
> Again, I'm not putting down any of these sets. I think for the most part,
> it's good for jazz to have it all available in any format.
>
> Just wondering if anyone else who has collected LPs is feeling this way.
>
> I also think it's another sign that no one is buying jazz, that they have
to
> put together the boxes for the aficionados because they know we'll pay for
> it, but they couldn't sell the CDs as separate entities.
>
> Just some thoughts!
>
> Glenn
>
>
Jazz4you
15+ years. I cherish my vinyl, but I also buy and colect CD's,
although not with the fervor I have for vinyl. I also am an advocate
of box sets, and not just for afficianados. With the prices some
classic jazz LP's are fetching these days, it may be impossible to
compile, for example, listenable examples of Bill Evans Riverside work
for under $100 each, whereas the CD box goes for somewhere in the
$150-200 range. For those who have an uninterrupted cash flow and can
afford to buy the original LP's, I say more power to 'em. For myself,
as big of a vinyl junkie as I am, I would more likely buy the Evans box
(first), and then perhaps try to hunt down the vinyl examples. My
point is this. There is a plethora of great music to be had, either on
vinyl or CD, singles or boxes. Box sets are great, vinyl is great, but
you still gotta eat!
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
no...@webtv.net
small notion.
The first record I ever bought was a Fats Waller recording on a 10" 78
rpm Pathe. Viper's drag on one side ... Alligator Crawl on the other.
It was a very marvellous thing.
Jumping from that 1945 purchase to 1961 ... Atlantic LP-1361 ... My
Favorite Things ... was to jump to another very marvellous thing. Like
a personal space shot.
I don't own any boxed sets. I don't even own any CD's. Can't afford to
buy any. I have a CD player that I bought so as to play music borrowed
from the Public Library.
My notion then ... having no base in true experience ... is an abstract
one.
What I see is that what is being presented in the boxes as a space
compression ... is a time compression.
While earlier LP's going 18-20 mins. per side could compress time by
including cuts of different dates ... the listening time seemed real.
The feeling was that listening to the LP was reasonably similar to a
realtime experience. And the LP's were no hassle to listen to.
It took a collection of LP's to be able to broadcast a history ... such
as an artist's birthday celebration.
What the CD boxes are then ... are time capsules ... portable histories.
Total music libraries. There is no good nor bad in this. The CD's and
CD boxes are tools for listening. How they are used is totally up to
the users. How they are enjoyed is, also.
As for the question ... Do Box Sets Take The Fun Out? ... without having
had the experience I can only say that they might very well take the fun
out ... for me.
Because while they offer completeness ... they demand a price of
inconvenience. The tracks are not easily accessible enough to be fun.
I like the simple life and having to progam the material sounds like
just too much work. But ... I am not a person of the "computer
generation". What I see as over-endeavour for listener satisfaction may
not be perceived that way at all by those to whom programming is the
normal everyday experience.
I'd like to hear what the 15-30 year olds have to say about this.
Those boxes, though ... and whatever compression is coming next ...
sound perfect for carrying into space. They may well be the tools that
are predicting their own ultimate future use.
--
Norton Shawn
. .. .. .. ..
H. Loess
>I've been reading the posts from Rick (CineStudy) and lots of others about
>collecting a certain artist's recorded output, mostly starting with box
>sets. Don't misunderstand - I think these box sets are great. I own a few
>myself, although it's mostly stuff I didn't have on LP.
Well, these are two different points of view. The box set is a different
animal to those of us who have absorbed this music over two or three decades
(I'm coming up on three; I know there are many here who have a decade (or
two or three) on that) than it is to one just discovering this music. I
agree that something (something for which I share your feeling) is lost in
first approaching this material via the box set; I'm just not sure how
relevant the advantages of discovering this music in the LP era are to the
issue of where best to start in the CD era.
> I'm just thinking
>back fondly on my youth and remembering how big a deal it was to go buy a
>new LP. I would scour the bins for hours to come up with some gem that I
>didn't have, then play it to death til I wore it out.
Of course, one can still obsess over a particular track or session within
the box. The advantage of acquiring the box is that the other sessions won't
become unavailable by the time you're ready to move on.
>Every record was it's own entity and existed on it's own merit.
Very true, but decades later, less a concern. Some stand on their own and
still offer something in that form that they don't as part of a box. Some
have more to offer within the larger context. Again, those of us who came to
these during the LP era can mentally segregate the boxed material. In either
case, we can never experience these albums as people did when they were
first issued, speaking to their day.
>Not to mention the great cover art, etc.
Agreed, the physicality of the LP is lost in this era, but that doesn't
enter into the box vs. single CD question.
>I guess this is no different than the 78 days when one would purchase a
>song! I'm sure guys older than me remember running to the store to get the
>latest release by whomever.
This is my point; those of us who came to this music in the LP era could
never hear these tracks as they sounded to their first purchasers. I can
barely begin to imagine what Monk's "Evidence" sounded like in '48, on 78,
as an entity unto itself.
(I also sometimes wonder what Miles' "He Loved Him Madly, parts 1-8" would
have sounded like then were we able to master it onto four 78s and deliver
it there via time machine.)
>I'm just imagining Rick sitting there with all this music, all properly
>catalogued (for the most part) with outtakes, etc. For me, as a musician, I
>would be overwhelmed and I don't think I would get the same value from the
>music as I did when I purchased everything separately.
No, but your appreciation was gained not just across albums, but across
decades. I don't know whether it is possible to *discover* this music (whose
historical context has also changed) in just the way we did, but I do think
that it is still best appreciated over time in the larger context. (And I
still remember how, when I had dozens of albums by each major artist still
to come to terms with, and wanted properly to come to each in turn, as you
suggest, I unfailingly chose to buy the one which would remain in print,
passing up the one which would soon become unavailable in any form for 10-15
years (or more).)
>Again, I'm not putting down any of these sets. I think for the most part,
>it's good for jazz to have it all available in any format.
Ultimately, I think this is the most important thing.
>Just wondering if anyone else who has collected LPs is feeling this way.
Certainly, but it isn't 1923, 1948, or 1971; I'm not sure those of us who
Amos Omondi
I'm glad you said this was back in your youth: grown-ups should derive
their enjoyment from the music -- not from running around looking for
obscure things. Of course, there are some jazz fans for whom the
running around is very important. For such people, all-X-ever-did boxed
sets kill the enjoyment. There is also another group who believe the
rarer a recording is, the better the music. For example, 5 or so years
ago, Young's UNITY was near impossible to find, and r.m.b. was full
of postings on what a wonderful record it was - almost as it it was "the
best" jazz ever produced. Those who didn't have it went running around;
those who had it enjoyed it even more, knowing that *they* had it. But
since UNITY popped up all over the place, there has hardly been postings
on it. After UNITY became widely available, it was replaced by
READY FOR FREDDIE as *the record*. Back to the point ... UNITY
types also have their fun disappear "everything" becomes available.
I think what's in many boxed sets can send individually; e.g. many
people
have all individual Monk, Bill Evans, etc. on OJC and related. What
boxed
sets mostly satisfy are those who are so obsessed they must have
everything
their hero ever did, those who simply must have everything period, those
who
must listen to all zillion takes (however hopeless) of tune Y, etc.
You'll often see the words "collector" and "collecting" bandied about.
These
seem appropriate, as the boxheads seem to be more into the collection
than
anything else. They run around asking, "I think I have everything X
ever did.
Did I miss anything?", instead of " I think I have all of X's excellent
recording.
Is there anything else good that I missed?".
Of course, some boxed sets are quite good and are for all jazz fans and
not
just the boxheads. A few examples:
* Miles - PLUGED NICKEL
* Brown - EMARCY
* Wynton - VANGUARD
* TATUM - GROUP & SOLO (though latter can sound a bit samey)
> ----------
> From: Glenn Wilson[SMTP:glenn....@pobox.com]
> Posted At: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 4:39 AM
> Posted To: bluenote
> Conversation: Do Box Sets Take The Fun Out?
> Subject: Do Box Sets Take The Fun Out?
>
> I've been reading the posts from Rick (CineStudy) and lots of others
> about
> collecting a certain artist's recorded output, mostly starting with
> box
> sets. Don't misunderstand - I think these box sets are great. I own
> a few
> myself, although it's mostly stuff I didn't have on LP. I'm just
> thinking
> back fondly on my youth and remembering how big a deal it was to go
> buy a
> new LP. I would scour the bins for hours to come up with some gem
> that I
> didn't have, then play it to death til I wore it out. Every record
> was it's
> own entity and existed on it's own merit. Not to mention the great
> cover
> art, etc.
>
> I guess this is no different than the 78 days when one would purchase
> a
> song! I'm sure guys older than me remember running to the store to
> get the
> latest release by whomever.
>
> I'm just imagining Rick sitting there with all this music, all
> properly
> catalogued (for the most part) with outtakes, etc. For me, as a
> musician, I
> would be overwhelmed and I don't think I would get the same value from
> the
> music as I did when I purchased everything separately.
>
> Again, I'm not putting down any of these sets. I think for the most
> part,
> it's good for jazz to have it all available in any format.
>
> Just wondering if anyone else who has collected LPs is feeling this
> way.
>
PAUL MACCA
>I'm glad you said this was back in your youth: grown-ups should derive
>their enjoyment from the music -- not from running around looking for
>obscure things. Of course, there are some jazz fans for whom the
>running around is very important. For such people, all-X-ever-did boxed
>
>sets kill the enjoyment. There is also another group who believe the
>rarer a recording is, the better the music. For example, 5 or so years
>ago, Young's UNITY was near impossible to find, and r.m.b. was full
>of postings on what a wonderful record it was - almost as it it was "the
>
>best" jazz ever produced. Those who didn't have it went running around;
>those who had it enjoyed it even more, knowing that *they* had it. But
>since UNITY popped up all over the place, there has hardly been postings
>on it. After UNITY became widely available, it was replaced by
>READY FOR FREDDIE as *the record*. Back to the point ... UNITY
>types also have their fun disappear "everything" becomes available.
You make fun of people you call "boxheads", who you categorically describe as
folks who would rather make purchases with an eye toward comprehensiveness
rather than musical merit.
But in your post, you describe another type of "fan" that could also be
categorized in an unfavorable light. You said that "UNITY types also have
their fun disappear [when] 'everything' becomes available." Now why is that?
If "Unity" was such a great album before it was reissued, then why should
anyone's enjoyment of the music suddenly be lessened *after* the reissue? Did
they love "Unity" for its music, or did they love it because it was a rare and
highly sought-after "commodity"? If their love for the album cooled even one
iota, that says something.
I think we need to get away from this idea of "labeling" folks who prefer to
buy their music by individual albums and others who prefer to purchase box
sets. We each came into jazz through different circumstances (year, recorded
format, budget, etc.) and so we each have our own needs and interests when it
comes to purchasing decisions. Why can't we respect that diversity in
viewpoint? Why can't veteran fans who may have spent years purchasing
individual LPs and CDs be glad when younger or newer fans want to experience
the same music, but in a different package and sequencing?
This reminds me of the kind of discussion that arose in the Steely Dan mailing
list, when the longtime fans who bought the original LPs were dissing the
younger fans who bought the "Citizen Steely Dan" box set. A few vets were all
too eager to call the box set purchasers as not being "true fans." Yet, when
it came to discussion on other topics, I found that the newer fans tended to
talk more about the music and the performances while the vets tended to discuss
all the various matrix numbers of foreign pressings of "Katy Lied."
Who are the "true fans", indeed?
H. Loess
>Bruce LeClaire wrote:
>> And so, I pose the question, have CD's killed the concept album?
>> Personally, I like to think that the artist really put some thought into
>> organizing the album release. While acknowledging the naďveté of
>> ignoring the influence of the producer, I do find that some of the most
>> enjoyable albums in my collection seem to have songs that naturally
>> match and flow into each other, as the artist planned them to do. And I
>> think that such an album concept naturally maps into a 40 minute time
>> span better than a 70 minute one.
>> Today we have mp3 format and instant release via internet distribution.
>> As to the future of the music form, I invite discussion.
>This has nothing to do with jazz, but I was watching an interview with
>Lou Reed on CNN this past weekend (which seems like a strange place to
>be watching him, not that I think about it) where he was discussing his
>new album, and basically saying just what you have said here. He was
>talking about how his album is very precisely crafted to follow a
>specific progression, and people who make compilation tapes, download
>specific songs off the web, or even use them for mixing, really will
>never understand what he is trying to say. He is the professional, who
>has spent his life making music, and all the 'kids' who try to reprogram
>his music are fools.
Except that he wouldn't *be* on CNN were it not for the music he made when
he was less concerned about being a "professional", and more willing to have
his 'facts' be presented to a candid world.
>He did imply that it wasn't just him -- all good
>musicians have a plan for an album, so don't mess with it.
Fair enough - but should we identify the "good musicians" by their own
tastes, by yours, by Lou Reed's, or by our own?
--
Henry L.
hlo...@pipeline.com
Dennis J. Kosterman
<bw...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Michael Fitzgerald wrote:
>>> Peter J King wrote:
>>> I'm a little wary of boxed sets, but for a slightly different reason, I
>>> think. When I buy a single album, I listen to it with more focus, and get
>>> more out of it [...]
>> It seems you are letting things determine your listening that you
>> don't have to. *You* can decide to put the CD on 'repeat' and listen
>> again and again to a single track (or set of tracks). You can program
>> it however you want. [...]
>I've commented on this before, but no matter how you slice it,
>reprogramming is a pain.
I'm with Michael all the way on this one. I spend a lot of time
listening to CDs (5-6 hours per day, and more than that on weekends),
and about half the time, I do some sort of programming, particularly
when I'm listening to something from a boxed set. I don't find it a
pain at all. Sure, it's easier to just pop in a disc and hit "play",
but not that much easier, and this minor disadvantage is greatly
outweighed by the advantages of the boxed set:
(1) Often contains material that is otherwise unavailable;
(2) Almost always cheaper than buying all the individual CDs;
(3) Usually chronological (to me, this is an advantage).
> ... Somehow the match of creative output with 40 minutes seems to
>work, or perhaps the matchup is between the listeners ability to focus
>on a recording and a time length of 40 minutes. [Aside- who could
>actually attend a college-level lecture and still pay serious attention
>after 40-50 minutes, please raise your hand.]
I think this depends on the artist and the listener. This is
especially apparent if you look at other types of music. What about
classical music, where a single composition is often greater than 40
minutes in length (operas can be 3 or 4 times that)?
In my ideal world, the length of a new release would be governed not
by the medium, but by what the artist has to say, and how long it
takes to say it. Richard Wagner needed 3 or 4 hours; the Ramones only
needed 2 minutes. There's no reason a CD has to have 80 minutes of
music just because it can hold that much (although some critics seem
to think so). But I don't think the LP maximum of 45 minutes or so (or
the 78 limit of about 3 minutes) is any kind of a "natural" length
either. Whether you're talking about a single piece of music or a
group of songs linked by a "concept", the natural length is all over
the map, depending on the genre of music and the artist.
And those whose attention span is only 40 minutes should work on
expanding it, or they'll never be able to enjoy Wagner (or any live
concert -- the ones I've been to lately average 1-1/2 to 2 hours,
often without intermission).
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Amos Omondi
> ----------
> From: paul...@aol.com (PAUL MACCA)[SMTP:paul...@aol.com]
> Posted At: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 11:24 AM
> Posted To: bluenote
> Conversation: Do Box Sets Take The Fun Out?
> Subject: Re: Do Box Sets Take The Fun Out?
>
> But in your post, you describe another type of "fan" that could also
> be
> categorized in an unfavorable light. You said that "UNITY types also
> have
> their fun disappear [when] 'everything' becomes available." Now why
> is that?
> If "Unity" was such a great album before it was reissued, then why
> should
> anyone's enjoyment of the music suddenly be lessened *after* the
> reissue? Did
> they love "Unity" for its music, or did they love it because it was a
> rare and
> highly sought-after "commodity"? If their love for the album cooled
> even one
> iota, that says something.
>
Why is that? My question exactly! That says something?
Absolutely, and not about music either. But that's how
the
world is.
Jack Woker
>
> I've been reading the posts from Rick (CineStudy) and lots of others about
> collecting a certain artist's recorded output, mostly starting with box
> sets. Don't misunderstand - I think these box sets are great. I own a few
> myself, although it's mostly stuff I didn't have on LP. I'm just thinking
> back fondly on my youth and remembering how big a deal it was to go buy a
> new LP. I would scour the bins for hours to come up with some gem that I
> didn't have, then play it to death til I wore it out. Every record was it's
> own entity and existed on it's own merit. Not to mention the great cover
> art, etc.
I own a lot of boxed sets, Glenn, but started out as a kid of 15, buying
one record at a time and playing it over and over. Many of the boxed
sets I have are consolidations of music I already had bought
individually yaers earlier. However, we are not all the same, and if
Rick as a newcomer to the music and as an adult with different listening
habits than an enthusiastic kid, can glean enjoyment from being
introduced to the music in this manner, then I for one encourage him.
Personally, I'd recommend a variety of individual albums as a starting
point, but I'm not him.
jack
Glenn Wilson
news:0CF260C495FED111A661...@mail3.ntu.edu.sg...
> Glenn,
>
> I'm glad you said this was back in your youth: grown-ups should derive
> their enjoyment from the music -- not from running around looking for
> obscure things. Of course, there are some jazz fans for whom the
> running around is very important. For such people, all-X-ever-did boxed
>
Amos - you missed my point here. The joy I found was not from getting
something 'obscure' at all. My joy was finding a release I didn't know
about or couldn't find and discovering the 'MUSIC'. I'm trying to
juxtapose where I was at that point in my musical development with where a
lot of guys are now, comparing technology and availability of product then
with the same variables now.
Glenn
Glenn Wilson
news:390f7c38...@news.pipeline.com...
> "Glenn Wilson" <glenn....@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> The advantage of acquiring the box is that the other sessions won't
> become unavailable by the time you're ready to move on.
>
Henry - great point! Although I've seen things appear on CD that I never
thought would make it to CD, most of the individual albums that make up
these box sets are NOT available individually. I guess if one doesn't own
the music yet, one doesn't have much choice but to buy the box sets.
Glenn
Glenn Wilson
news:20000502181126...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> glenn wilson wrote:
>
> >I also think it's another sign that no one is buying jazz, that they have
>to
> >put together the boxes for the aficionados because they know we'll pay
>for
> >it, but they couldn't sell the CDs as separate entities.
>
past,
> the single album CDs continue to make up the bulk of sales. Why do I say
this?
>
Paul - I'm sure you're right about this. I guess I was thinking more in
terms of a MIles or Trane, etc. I discovered the Trane Prestige stuff one
by one. Lush Life, Black Peals, etc. That set of musicians/tunes will
always be identified by me with the original 'packaging'. It seems in the
box sets, original albums are ignored in favor of putting as much music on
one CD as can fit. If one buys the Miles Columbia set and wants to hear
'Miles Smiles', one has to span two CDs to get the original music. This, to
me, is distracting.
My original point about sales is that assuming if all the Prestige Trane
records were available, would anyone buy them? I don't think so. Why would
they? Producing a box set is probably more cost effective for the record
company than trying to keep all the individual albums available.
Glenn
Glenn Wilson
Michael Fitzgerald <fitz...@eclipse.net> wrote in message
news:g3mugs07eub4c5aeg...@4ax.com...
> It seems you are letting things determine your listening that you
> don't have to. *You* can decide to put the CD on 'repeat' and listen
> again and again to a single track (or set of tracks). You can program
> lazily toss in disc after disc and then complain. But the 'lack of
> focus' is down to you, I think, not the set or even how you purchase.
>
Very true, Michael. But assuming one is new to the music, one wouldn't know
which cuts to program, etc.
When I release a CD, I spend a lot of time figuring out how to 'program' the
music so that the listener only need put on the CD and play it. The tunes
are in the order I want them to be heard, much like one would program a live
set. Same with liner notes, etc. My producer has even suggested changing
the order of tunes in some cases, for various reasons. I bought the Miles
Columbia box set even though I had all the original albums on LP, but not on
CD. I enjoy the outtakes, etc. but if I want to listen to 'Nefretti' on CD
I have to span discs. This, to me, is a distraction.
Glenn
Tom Walls
says...
>snip
>Just wondering if anyone else who has collected LPs is feeling this way.
>
When I was a kid(I'm 48) it was very rare for me to have $2 to buy an LP.
I've probably bought more cds so far this year than I did in the first 25
years of my life. I would make regular rounds of all the major record
retailers in town(South Bend, Indiana a mid-size city of about a million
people) and had a mental catalogue of everything available in the categories
of rock, blues and jazz. By the time I actually purchased something I knew
by heart every bit of information I could gleen from the liner notes(label,
players, tunes, composers, length of tune). I also knew every record owned
by my every friend, and what was available in the library.
What was the question? :<)
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
Tom Walls
>
>snip
>And so, I pose the question, have CD's killed the concept album?
There must have been at least one zillion jazz concept or theme recordings
released in the last decade. Tributes, songbooks. Personally this approach
doesn't appeal to me, but it seems to be the recording industry's favorite
strategy for marketing jazz.
Greg Evans
> Personally this approach doesn't appeal to me, but it seems to
> be the recording industry's favorite strategy for marketing jazz.
I've been following this discussion for days now. Many interesting points
have been made both pro and con, but after all this the only clear opinion
in my own mind regarding box sets is: better this marketing strategy than
the alternative of no market at all....Of course I know *something* would
take its place (there have been plenty of other threads on this subject),
but for now I guess box sets are What Is. The relatively expensive sets
make it harder for cash-strapped youngsters to start exploring, thus
ensuring that the market will shrink even further, but it wouldn't be the
first time that short-sighted greed outweighed long-term benefits.
Tom Walls
says...
The "approach" I spoke of was that of concept or theme cds. I have a few box
sets and I treasure them.
Bruce LeClaire
Jack Woker wrote:
>
> [...] However, we are not all the same, and if
> Rick as a newcomer to the music and as an adult with different listening
> habits than an enthusiastic kid, can glean enjoyment from being
> introduced to the music in this manner, then I for one encourage him.
> Personally, I'd recommend a variety of individual albums as a starting
> point, but I'm not him.
>
I have to agree with this recommendation.
But it occurs to me that Rick has yet to acquire much of the Blue Note
collection of great jazz (which happens to be some of my most favorite
blowing sessions). Perhaps another way to package a box set would be to
cut across the best of a time period, including the original releases
bundled together for the convenience of the purchaser, with liner notes
more akin to history of jazz books rather than musical biographies.
After all, Rick and others are interested in acquiring the best of the
genre in a convenient fashion. The market probably exists, and if the
label were willing to slightly discount the cost/CD for the box the
incentive would be there as well.
--Bruce
PS- Miles Prestige box, great stuff (and few alternates).
Bruce LeClaire
Tom Walls wrote:
>
> In bw...@mindspring.com says...
>
>> And so, I pose the question, have CD's killed the concept album?
An obvious attempt on my part to be provocative, I admit.
[Now back to Tom...]
>
> There must have been at least one zillion jazz concept or theme recordings
> released in the last decade. Tributes, songbooks. Personally this approach
> doesn't appeal to me, but it seems to be the recording industry's favorite
> strategy for marketing jazz.
Would it be fair to say that the tribute/songbook concept is mostly the
work of producers/marketeers? I believe I'm correct in saying that
Norman Granz introduced Ella to the idea of doing a series of songbooks
(some of my favorites). I suppose an artist who didn't compose
themselves would be more inclined to do them as well. After all the
popularity of the material is guaranteed already. In a sense box sets
are a natural extension of this concept (taken to the extreme).
Currently, Jazz32 is promoting (quite successfully) a series of mood
concept albums. This is obviously a different strategy.
But I wanted to also talk about albums which consist of mostly/entirely
original compositions organized within a framework of some kind.
Original jazz concept albums that I like and are well known include:
"Kind of Blue" (modal)
"Birth of the Cool" (eponymous)
"Giant Steps" (extreme vertical/
Coltrane changes/eponymous)
"Search for the New Land" (landscape/soundscape/eponymous?)
"Sidewinder" (jazz funk)
"Shape of Jazz to Come" (free/eponymous?)
"Coltrane Blues" (eponymous)
Wow, looking at this list I now realize how great these titles are!
Beautifully descriptive, appropriate and apt.
Let me ask the question differently then. This relates to Dennis
Kosterman's post as well. Given absolutely no time constraints on the
length of an "album", what would the distribution of album length be? in
jazz? in other music genres?. Related to this would be the frequency of
release that an artist choices for distribution of their material.
Given the relative freedom of the internet these are once again open
questions.
The possibility exists that we return to the era of 78's where songs are
released almost as soon as the artist conceives them (think mp3). A
modern day example of this might be Sarah McLachlan who, after the
"Fumbling Towards Ecstasy" album, basically only released a few singles
of original material. But I viewed that as her arriving at the end of a
wonderful creative period and maintaining/milking her widespread (but
belated) popularity.
Other possibilities for organizing music releases exist as well.
--Bruce
Bruce LeClaire
"Dennis J. Kosterman" wrote in part:
>
> <bw...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > I've commented on this before, but no matter how you slice it,
> > reprogramming is a pain.
>
> I spend a lot of time listening to CDs (5-6 hours per day, and more
> than that on weekends), and about half the time, I do some sort of
> programming, particularly when I'm listening to something from a
> boxed set.
Dennis, I very much respect your listening and comments. But let me
ask, when you put a CD on and reprogram it, what are you doing? Are you
eliminating alternates, picking out the songs and order that you're in
the mood for, reducing the playtime to fit other albums in, what? Do
you vary your editing each time you play the CD, and if not, don't you
find the editing repetitious? And how do you know what each song is?
Don't you find it a pain to look this up from the liner notes (or are
you using CDDB)?
I have to run now, but I've got a couple of more questions for the 2nd
part of your post for later.
--Cheers, Bruce
Simon Weil
>I guess box sets are What Is. The relatively expensive sets
>make it harder for cash-strapped youngsters to start exploring, thus
>ensuring that the market will shrink even further, but it wouldn't be the
>first time that short-sighted greed outweighed long-term benefits.
>
the last few days - because of cinestudy's voracious appetite. Personally I am
a bit sated - It is just a different world where someone can afford to go out
and buy boxes day after day after day. The whole effect is a bit suffocating,
with so many posts on that.
In general, the Box Set thing is part of the reissue thing. Perhaps that
appeals to the older Jazz fan in particular. One is buying the past in Jazz
rather than the present.
Simon Weil
Jack Woker
> The relatively expensive sets
> make it harder for cash-strapped youngsters to start exploring, thus
> ensuring that the market will shrink even further, but it wouldn't be the
> first time that short-sighted greed outweighed long-term benefits.
Almost everything in most boxed sets is available in smaller formats for
the beginner or cash-strapped youngster. I believe that the boxed sets
are aimed at the experienced and more knowledgeable jazz fan, and have
little to do with greed. If you sit down and do the arithmetic, the
price-per-minute of music in a boxed set is usually lower. I'd be
willing to bet that the contents of any jazz boxed set you care to name
is far outsold by the individual CD's that comprise it.
jack
CineStudy
Lou Reed on CNN this past weekend (which seems like a strange place to
be watching him, not that I think about it) where he was discussing his
new album, and basically saying just what you have said here. He was
talking about how his album is very precisely crafted to follow a
specific progression, and people who make compilation tapes, download
specific songs off the web, or even use them for mixing, really will
never understand what he is trying to say. He is the professional, who
has spent his life making music, and all the 'kids' who try to reprogram
musicians have a plan for an album, so don't mess with it.
Dan>>
Dan,
This is were my rock experience come in. I have been a fan of Reeds since his
days with The Velvet Underground and for years bought every release he put out
(a lot on vinyl). Recently I feel he is really out of touch with his music and
lost it but that is my opinion. But the point I want to say is in the last
decade Reed has endorsed not one but two excellent Box sets, One on his solo
career and another on The Velvet Underground. No, he did not produce this
material or even decide the running order. But after they came out (which was a
year apart I think) he was on the talk show circuit promoting them. I remember
once him saying on MTV he loved all the extras that were found.
Rick
Michael Fitzgerald
<glenn....@pobox.com> wrote:
>Michael Fitzgerald <fitz...@eclipse.net> wrote
>> You can program
>> it however you want. You can play dictator via remote. Or you can just
>> lazily toss in disc after disc and then complain. But the 'lack of
>> focus' is down to you, I think, not the set or even how you purchase.
>
>Very true, Michael. But assuming one is new to the music, one wouldn't know
>which cuts to program, etc.
I suppose, so I'll again plead for "complete" sets to be chronological
(all takes in order from first to last of the sessions) and include
album issue running order details - in the notes. Then you have that
information.
"Album" reissues should be in original running order (bonus tracks
last) and the chronological recording session sequence should be in
the notes. Verve seems to be doing this now.
>When I release a CD, I spend a lot of time figuring out how to 'program' the
>music so that the listener only need put on the CD and play it. The tunes
>are in the order I want them to be heard, much like one would program a live
>set. Same with liner notes, etc. My producer has even suggested changing
>the order of tunes in some cases, for various reasons. I bought the Miles
>Columbia box set even though I had all the original albums on LP, but not on
>CD. I enjoy the outtakes, etc. but if I want to listen to 'Nefretti' on CD
>I have to span discs. This, to me, is a distraction.
Yeah, I understand, but if you are really hung up on this, then you
ought to buy the single CD issue of Nefertiti.
"Complete" reissues and "album" reissues serve different purposes. And
rightfully so, I think.
Mike
PAUL MACCA
>Paul - I'm sure you're right about this. I guess I was thinking more in
>terms of a MIles or Trane, etc. I discovered the Trane Prestige stuff >one
>by one. Lush Life, Black Peals, etc. That set of musicians/tunes will
>always be identified by me with the original 'packaging'. It seems in >the
>box sets, original albums are ignored in favor of putting as much music >on
>one CD as can fit.
A valid point. I can certainly understand how artistic statements that a jazz
musician originally wanted to convey to a listener might be altered or diluted
when everything is presented in a straight chronological fashion or if tracks
are switched around to balance out playing times on CDs. Imagine if Capitol
released a box set on every single tape they had of the Beatles and they
interrupted their presentation of the "Sgt. Pepper" album with preliminary
takes of "You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)", a corny song that wasn't
released until 1970 as the flipside of the "Let It Be" single.
But then, this kind of comprehensive box set is, by its very nature, already a
departure from the artist's original intention. Never mind about previously
released tracks that have been re-ordered or spaced out over several discs.
Would Bill Evans have approved of the alternate takes included in any of his
box sets? Would he have approved of the sound of the digital remastering?
Would he have approved of the new liner notes and essays written especially for
the set? In the case of someone who's dead like Evans, we will never know
because he's not around anymore to be consulted (although some of his friends
like Paul Motian insists that Evans would have "flipped out" had he learned of
the unreleased material being made available.)
I guess my point is that, when it comes to the artist's original intentions, a
lot of variables come into play. It's not a simple matter. Still, should box
sets be shelved altogether when it comes to artists who are dead simply because
we don't know whether he/she would have liked this or that? My answer is,....
no. Hopefully, the people who put together box sets like this are
knowledgeable and have good taste. Hey, consulting Orrin Keepnews is no
substitute for the input and insight that Evans or Coltrane might have given
toward their own work. But under the circumstances, Orrin's direction might be
the best we got.
>My original point about sales is that assuming if all the Prestige Trane
>records were available, would anyone buy them? I don't think so. Why >would
>they? Producing a box set is probably more cost effective for the >record
>company than trying to keep all the individual albums available.
Well, there's economics for you. Even when it comes to classic recordings like
this, it's still a business. BTW, it's understandable why some of the
individual Prestige albums which make up the Coltrane box is no longer in print
individually. While the albums where Coltrane is featured as a leader would no
doubt hold their own in sales, one can't be sure about the more obscure titles
where he is a sideman. For example, the one where he plays with the tuba
player would probably not sell well at all on its own, even if the Prestige box
was not around. If not for the box set, that material might be long OOP.
Better for such recordings to remain in circulation in a box set that to fade
into total obscurity.
Glenn Wilson
> Glenn Wilson wrote:
>
> Well, there's economics for you. Even when it comes to classic recordings
like
> this, it's still a business. BTW, it's understandable why some of the
> individual Prestige albums which make up the Coltrane box is no longer in
> individually. While the albums where Coltrane is featured as a leader
would no
> doubt hold their own in sales, one can't be sure about the more obscure
titles
> where he is a sideman. For example, the one where he plays with the tuba
> player would probably not sell well at all on its own, even if the
Prestige box
> was not around. If not for the box set, that material might be long OOP.
> Better for such recordings to remain in circulation in a box set that to
fade
> into total obscurity.
True, true. Also, a lot of the Prestige stuff is a little short on time. I
know people who won't buy a CD with 35 minutes on it, just for that reason.
The worst are the Tony Bennett/Bill Evans albums. I think volume I has
about 26 minutes or something like that, but it's GREAT anyway. Some of the
best Tony Bennet ever. Introspective and non-showy.
My first recording "Impasse" on Cadence Jazz Records recorded in 1984 (on
LP, of course) is coming out soon on CD. Cadence asked me to go back
through the original tapes and find some outtakes to fill out the CD. It's
been fun and I've found some good stuff, but most of it is not up to the
level of the released takes. I may even put some brand new stuff on there
to really confuse people :)
Glenn
>
Glenn Wilson
lot. I think it's the only Beatles cut that never appeared on an album.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, Ray Draper was the tubaist. I played some gigs
with him in NY. He was one of the nicest guys you would ever meet and
played the shit out of the tuba. He talked about playing/recording with
Trane. I think he was murdered, if I remember correctly. Terrible shame.
Glenn
PAUL MACCA <paul...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000503164209...@ng-md1.aol.com...
> Glenn Wilson wrote:
>
Michael Fitzgerald
<glenn....@pobox.com> wrote:
>I discovered the Trane Prestige stuff one
>by one. Lush Life, Black Peals, etc. That set of musicians/tunes will
>always be identified by me with the original 'packaging'. It seems in the
>box sets, original albums are ignored in favor of putting as much music on
>'Miles Smiles', one has to span two CDs to get the original music. This, to
>me, is distracting.
You might be interested to know that some of the Prestige recordings
that Coltrane did came out in dribs and drabs *after* he left the
label - as late as 1965. You'd have to consult a discography to see
just which (I think "The Last Trane," "Black Pearls", and "Bahia" are
some - anything with him playing soprano on the cover!). Prestige
split up sessions between different albums with no real rhyme or
reason, so putting sessions back together makes perfect sense here.
Again, I understand and sympathize with the "split-album" problem. But
a single disc "album" reissue would fix this. I guess you can't have
it both ways - economic savings by packing boxed set CDs full and
keeping absolutely everything separated by original album order.
There is an argument *for* nostalgia in keeping packaging as it was
originally, but also one for presenting the music in a comprehensive
manner for younger generations or those who aren't so interested in
how an old record company was forced to parse up things. And I do feel
that a lot of those decisions were *forced* not chosen.
>My original point about sales is that assuming if all the Prestige Trane
>records were available, would anyone buy them? I don't think so. Why would
>they? Producing a box set is probably more cost effective for the record
>company than trying to keep all the individual albums available.
But - but - but -
All the Prestige Coltrane albums ARE available as single CDs!
Same thing with a lot of the Fantasy-owned sets (Miles Davis, Art
Tatum, Bill Evans, Monk, etc.).
Mike
dxy...@my-deja.com
Steve Mack <sm...@escape.com> wrote:
> Well, I'm a college kid, and I buy CDs. In fact, for some reason, I
not only don't
> buy boxed sets, I don't buy compilations either. One pride of mine
is that I have
> over twenty Mingus CDs and not a single identical track on any two.
>
I'm with you on compilations; I much prefer to track down the originals.
But how do you manage to have twenty Mingus CDs and not a single
identical track? Heck, I've only got about a dozen, but it seems like
Haitian Fight Song, Better Git Hit in Your Soul, and Fables of Faubus
is on every one of them! Not that there's anything WRONG with that.
Lot of live stuff...
Dxy
np Miles/Coltrane, Disc 2:00
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
PAUL MACCA
>My first recording "Impasse" on Cadence Jazz Records recorded in 1984 >(on
>LP, of course) is coming out soon on CD. Cadence asked me to go back
>through the original tapes and find some outtakes to fill out the CD. >It's
>been fun and I've found some good stuff, but most of it is not up to the
>level of the released takes. I may even put some brand new stuff on >there
>to really confuse people :)
Well, that's the problem with artists who are still alive. You guys are so
perfectionist that you can't stand the idea of releasing something that wasn't
up to snuff in the 1st place. ;-D
I think that was the problem for Steely Dan when they authorized their box set
in 1993. The only previously unreleased recording they put into the box was an
early version of "Everyone's Gone To The Movies" with Flo & Eddie (of Turtles
fame) singing along. They claimed that was the only thing left in the vaults.
That contention, of course, is false. Donald and Walter probably couldn't
stand the idea of releasing anything that was less than spit-and-polished. The
alternate takes and rejected songs that they recorded in the studio will
probably never see a legitimate release as long as they have a say. A similar
fate awaits the early concerts that ABC/Dunhill recorded, but never released.
BTW, for anyone who still does not know, Boomerang Records released "Forward
Into The Past," a fascinating CD which features 10 early demos recorded by Don,
Walter, and Denny Dias. Some of the songs were later early versions of songs
they later recorded (i.e. Brookyln Owes The Charmer Under Me, Barrytown, Mr.
Parker's Band). But some of the other songs were never used (Brain Tap
Shuffle, Don't Let Me In). Although the recording quality is somewhat muffled,
this album showed how their sound and style was established as far back as the
late 1960s. A must-have for any serious Steely Dan fan.
CineStudy
In general, the Box Set thing is part of the reissue thing. Perhaps that
appeals to the older Jazz fan in particular. One is buying the past in Jazz
rather than the present.
Simon Weil
>>
Or learning about it.
Rick
PAUL MACCA
>Paul - forgot to mention two things. FWIW, I like 'You Know My Name... >a
>lot.
Interestingly, that was Paul McCartney's favorite Beatles song too. But it
wasn't the kind of song that would have fit snugly into Sgt. Pepper, or any
other Beatle album for that matter. It was a song that they first recorded in
1967, put away, returned to in 1968, put away, and finally finished off in
1969. But they didn't feel it belonged on the Abbey Road or Let It Be albums.
So when a flipside was needed for the Let It Be 45, "You Know My Name" finally
saw the light of day.
>I think it's the only Beatles cut that never appeared on an album.
There are a few more, especially in the UK where the practice was to not
include singles on albums. (I'm not talking about greatest hit compilations,
of course.)
>Also, if I'm not mistaken, Ray Draper was the tubaist. I played some >gigs
>with him in NY. He was one of the nicest guys you would ever meet and
>played the shit out of the tuba. He talked about playing/recording with
>Trane. I think he was murdered, if I remember correctly. Terrible >shame.
Draper, yes. He got some exotic sounds out of that instrument. I didn't even
know he was dead. But it just goes to show how obscure some of these guys
later became. And if there is no popular demand for Ray Draper's catalog to be
issued on CD, then what's to become of his collaborations with Trane?
Maybe it's optimistic thinking on my part, but hopefully, its box sets like
this that revive people's interests in supporting musicians who were later
forgotten. Another guy who might benefit from a past collaboration with Trane
is Wilbur Harden, who is properly recognized as a co-leader on the recent Savoy
sessions re-issue. If enough of this stuff is sold, that might prompt the
record companies to dig into their vaults to scrape up any tapes they may have
of this underrated flugelist, who later completely fell out of sight and died
without a trace. Sad. But while nothing can be done to bring him back, the
least we can do is to keep his memory alive by making more of his recordings
available.
Steve Mack
> In article <390F5D98...@escape.com>,
> Steve Mack <sm...@escape.com> wrote:
> > Well, I'm a college kid, and I buy CDs. In fact, for some reason, I
> not only don't
> > buy boxed sets, I don't buy compilations either. One pride of mine
> is that I have
> > over twenty Mingus CDs and not a single identical track on any two.
> >
> I'm with you on compilations; I much prefer to track down the originals.
> But how do you manage to have twenty Mingus CDs and not a single
> identical track? Heck, I've only got about a dozen, but it seems like
> Haitian Fight Song, Better Git Hit in Your Soul, and Fables of Faubus
> is on every one of them! Not that there's anything WRONG with that.
> Lot of live stuff...
I think you misunderstood me. By "identical track" I mean an actual
recording that is exactly the same. I have many different recorded versions
of the same song, but no repeats of the same recording of the songs. For
example, the recording of "Mood Indigo" on Mingus Mingus Mingus Mingus
Mingus is a different track from the one on "Mingus Dynasty." It's not
really much of a feat, I don't think, to have that many Mingus albums with
no repeated track; I just mentioned it to point out that none of them were
compilations.
--
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
Lcfpsf
In general, the Box Set thing is part of the reissue thing. Perhaps that
appeals to the older Jazz fan in particular. One is buying the past in Jazz
rather than the present.>>
Simon, I find this statement a bit strange. Are you suggesting we ignore the
great music of the past?
Jazz has produced some truly outstanding music during it's relatively short
life. Armstrong, Ellington, Pres, Bird, etc.
It seems pefectly logical and appropriate for all jazz listeners whether young
or old to want to listen to that great music.
Should great paintings, plays, poetry, novels, symphonies, string quartets,
etc. from the past be ignored and all attention given to the newest thing?
Peter F
Blue Lake
Tom Walls <tw...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:8epaio$l9b$2...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
>
> released in the last decade. Tributes, songbooks. Personally this
approach
> doesn't appeal to me, but it seems to be the recording industry's favorite
> strategy for marketing jazz.
Verve used this idea to market Joe Henderson very well, the Ellington
songbook, as well a Shirely Horn, doing a Ray Charles and Miles Davis
songbook album, and Herbie Hancock, a Gershwin songbook. Format and length
don't determine content today the way they did when the shorter form 78 gave
way to Miles Davis playing "Walkin' " on LP and introducing the world to the
notion of an improvisor stretching out like they would in a night club or
concert setting.
The technology is not the message, it's a means to your appreciation.
Saxophononist/composer/bandleader Edward Wilkerson Jr. told me he'd be
exploiting the CD's length to write more developed and longer compositions:
here "Black Herman." Not restrictive, liberating.
Best,
Lazaro Vega
>
Blue Lake
CineStudy <cine...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000503184051...@ng-ba1.aol.com...
> <<
> In general, the Box Set thing is part of the reissue thing. Perhaps that
> appeals to the older Jazz fan in particular. One is buying the past in
Jazz
> rather than the present.
>
> >>
>
>
> Or learning about it.
>
> Rick
Or archiving it at a radio station.
Lazaro
Dennis J. Kosterman
<bw...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>"Dennis J. Kosterman" wrote in part:
>> <bw...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> > I've commented on this before, but no matter how you slice it,
>> > reprogramming is a pain.
>> I spend a lot of time listening to CDs (5-6 hours per day, and more
>> than that on weekends), and about half the time, I do some sort of
>> programming, particularly when I'm listening to something from a
>> boxed set.
>Dennis, I very much respect your listening and comments. But let me
>ask, when you put a CD on and reprogram it, what are you doing? Are you
>eliminating alternates, picking out the songs and order that you're in
>the mood for, reducing the playtime to fit other albums in, what? Do
>you vary your editing each time you play the CD, and if not, don't you
>find the editing repetitious? And how do you know what each song is?
>Don't you find it a pain to look this up from the liner notes (or are
>you using CDDB)?
Most of my programming falls into 3 categories:
1. Classical music, where I'm usually listening to a single
composition from a disc containing several compositions. Couplings on
classical discs are often a matter of convenience (what will fit on
the disc) -- they're not necessarily intended to be listened to all
the way through in one sitting. One of Keith Jarrett's early
quasi-classical albums ("In the Light" on ECM) actually contained
instructions from Jarrett *not* to listen to the whole album in one
sitting.
2. Boxed sets, where I want to listen to one of the "original"
albums (which generally do not correspond to any complete disc of the
boxed set). In this case, I usually edit out alternate takes and
previously unreleased tracks, because I want to hear the album in the
same form that people heard when it originally came out (this also
applies to single CD re-issues with "bonus" tracks).
3. Boxed sets, where I want to listen to a specific session.
In this case, I usually include alternate takes, etc., because I want
to hear everything that went down that day, in the same order that it
went down.
I do all this the same way, referring to the CD case or liner
notes and using the remote control that came with my CD changer (a
Yamaha CDC-765). Maybe this kind of thing gets tedious for some
people, but for me it's just part of the process of listening to
music. I don't give it a second thought, I just do it. It's certainly
less hassle than going to a concert (although I often do that, too),
or playing records (ahh, the bad old days, getting up every 20 minutes
to change the record, having to clean each record before I played it,
and still hearing as much snap-crackle-pop as music (OK, that's an
exaggeration, but surface noise always bothered me, especially in the
quieter parts of classical records) -- I don't miss it at all).
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Dennis J. Kosterman
>In general, the Box Set thing is part of the reissue thing. Perhaps that
>appeals to the older Jazz fan in particular. One is buying the past in Jazz
>rather than the present.
Ahh, but what a glorious past! I consider myself a middle-aged jazz
fan -- I'm 45, which puts me pretty much in the middle of the age
range in this ng. As long as I've been a jazz fan (a little less than
30 years), I've retained an interest in "new" jazz, and that's still
true to this day. The best concert I've heard in the last few years
was by Myra Melford's band (with Dave Douglas), and that represents
"the present" if anything does. Close behind that are shows by Cecil
Taylor and Roscoe Mitchell -- both are "older", but they're certainly
not just re-hashing the past.
But no matter how committed you are to "new" jazz, there's no denying
that a lot of great music was made in earlier times. I'm not going to
miss out on Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington and Lester Young and
Billie Holiday and Charlie Parker and ..., just because their best
music was made before I was born. Great music is great music, and I
want to hear it all. That necessarily includes "the past" as well as
the present.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Dennis J. Kosterman
>I don't own any boxed sets. I don't even own any CD's.
>Because while they offer completeness ... they demand a price of
>inconvenience. The tracks are not easily accessible enough to be fun.
Wait a minute! They're certainly more accessible than on an LP, where
you had to get up, lift the dust cover off of the turntable, and then
physically move the tone arm to the desired track (and hope that you
didn't slip or drop it on the record). If I want to hear a given track
on a CD, all I have to do is press a button on my remote control.
And we won't even talk about accessing individual tracks on a cassette
tape...
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Simon Weil
><<
>In general, the Box Set thing is part of the reissue thing. Perhaps that
>appeals to the older Jazz fan in particular. One is buying the past in Jazz
>rather than the present.
>
Rick Schmidlin (Cinestudy) replied:
>Or learning about it.
>
But surely you look at yourself and understand that your sensibility has a
particular affinity for the past. I mean you have that gig as archivist for the
Doors - and the two movies you've produced have been Old "Classics". So, in a
way, your interest in Box sets just continues that. But I know, when I was just
starting, I bought so much stuff which was current.
Simon Weil
Simon Weil
>>In general, the Box Set thing is part of the reissue thing. Perhaps that
>>appeals to the older Jazz fan in particular. One is buying the past in Jazz
>>rather than the present.
>
>Ahh, but what a glorious past!
Oh, I agree, that is the appeal.
>I consider myself a middle-aged jazz
>fan -- I'm 45, which puts me pretty much in the middle of the age
>range in this ng. As long as I've been a jazz fan (a little less than
>30 years), I've retained an interest in "new" jazz, and that's still
>true to this day. The best concert I've heard in the last few years
>was by Myra Melford's band (with Dave Douglas), and that represents
>"the present" if anything does. Close behind that are shows by Cecil
>Taylor and Roscoe Mitchell -- both are "older", but they're certainly
>not just re-hashing the past.
The thing is I remember in the 70s, when I was coming up, buying a lot of stuff
that was current then. Like the ECM stuff, and Weather Report and whatever and
not really knowing such a lot about bop. And I think, in a way, that was
healthy. To be in touch with your "Now". Somehow people, not just in Jazz, seem
more to want to go in the past to find something to idenfify with now.
>But no matter how committed you are to "new" jazz, there's no denying
>that a lot of great music was made in earlier times. I'm not going to
>miss out on Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington and Lester Young and
>Billie Holiday and Charlie Parker and ..., just because their best
>music was made before I was born. Great music is great music, and I
>want to hear it all. That necessarily includes "the past" as well as
>the present.
>
To some extent, I think concentrating on the "Greats" tends to put those
producing the music in the present at a disadvantage. It tends to make people
feel that unless someone is "great" he isn't really making it - at the expense
of those who produce excellent, but not art-form changing, Jazz.
Simon Weil
Simon Weil
><<
>In general, the Box Set thing is part of the reissue thing. Perhaps that
>appeals to the older Jazz fan in particular. One is buying the past in Jazz
>rather than the present.>>
>
>
>Simon, I find this statement a bit strange. Are you suggesting we ignore the
>great music of the past?
>Jazz has produced some truly outstanding music during it's relatively short
>life. Armstrong, Ellington, Pres, Bird, etc.
>
>It seems pefectly logical and appropriate for all jazz listeners whether
>young
>or old to want to listen to that great music.
>
>Should great paintings, plays, poetry, novels, symphonies, string quartets,
>etc. from the past be ignored and all attention given to the newest thing?
C'mon Peter, this is a straw man. Of course I think you should ignore the past
of Jazz entirely and completely. Just as you should ignore its present utterly
and totally. And, to an exactly similar extent, if you are any good as a
prophet, I would urge you to give any Jazz you forsee for the future an
absolute miss too (by the way do you have any tips about the stock market?). On
the other hand I hear Kenny G. is cutting some really cool records these days!
I can buy as much of his stuff as I like and go on ignoring Jazz for ever.
Fantastic.
Simon Weil
Richard Thurston
simo...@aol.com (Simon Weil) wrote:
> I wrote:
> >>In general, the Box Set thing is part of the reissue thing. Perhaps
that
> >>appeals to the older Jazz fan in particular. One is buying the past
in Jazz
> >>rather than the present.
> >
--
My experiences suggests this isn't an either/or thing.
People I know (myself included) who purchase box sets tend to be avid
purchasers of 'new' music as well. They also tend to comprise the
audience for live performances I attend at clubs or concert halls.
They tend to have a broad experience with the music. And collecting cds
of musicians they may have heard in years before (or may never have
heard) expands their knowledge. Weather Report or the ECM label of the
early 1970's was, I suppose, 'new'. But then guys like Joe Zawinul came
from somewhere (Ben Webster, Cannonball, Miles). They didn't just
emerge full blown and 'new'.
Beyond the act of buying a set of music from an artist no longer living
what about sets from living artists? So I buy a box of Sonny Rollins or
Lee Konitz? Problem? Does there come a point in an artist's recording
career where one says, "Enough! No more from you?"
Is listening to earlier efforts from current artists "living in the
past"?
Richard Thurston
Bruce LeClaire
Bruce LeClaire wrote:
>
> But I wanted to also talk about albums which consist of mostly/entirely
> original compositions organized within a framework of some kind.
> Original jazz concept albums that I like and are well known include:
>
> "Kind of Blue" (modal)
> "Birth of the Cool" (eponymous)
> "Giant Steps" (extreme vertical/
> Coltrane changes/eponymous)
> "Search for the New Land" (landscape/soundscape/eponymous?)
> "Sidewinder" (jazz funk)
> "Shape of Jazz to Come" (free/eponymous?)
> "Coltrane Blues" (eponymous)
>
> Wow, looking at this list I now realize how great these titles are!
> Beautifully descriptive, appropriate and apt.
>
And how could I forget:
"Time Out" (time signatures/eponymous)
--Bruce
Bruce LeClaire
"Dennis J. Kosterman" wrote:
>
> Most of my programming falls into 3 categories [...]
>
> I do all this the same way, referring to the CD case or liner
> notes and using the remote control that came with my CD changer (a
> Yamaha CDC-765). Maybe this kind of thing gets tedious for some
> people, but for me it's just part of the process of listening to
> music. I don't give it a second thought, I just do it.
Thanks for the reply, you're clearly a dedicated listener. A labor of
love as they say.
> It's certainly less hassle [...] playing records
> (ahh, the bad old days, getting up every 20 minutes
> to change the record, having to clean each record before I played it,
> and still hearing as much snap-crackle-pop as music (OK, that's an
> exaggeration, but surface noise always bothered me, especially in the
> quieter parts of classical records) -- I don't miss it at all).
>
Total agreement here, CD's are good for that. But you might very much
appreciate the transistion to high quality mp3's where you can store
~100 CD's on your hard-drive, and use playlists to tailor your listening
order just once, for hours and hours at a time.
And now that we've eliminated surface noise perhaps someone can figure
out a way to eliminate the noise of fingers sliding over metal-wound
steels on a classical guitar, or of a flutist constantly gulping air
over long passages. (For classical; please keep the popping of
saxophone pads, and the rasp of spit in the mouthpiece for jazz).
--Bruce
Bruce LeClaire
>
> [Simon] wrote:
> >>In general, the Box Set thing is part of the reissue thing. Perhaps that
> >>appeals to the older Jazz fan in particular. One is buying the past in Jazz
> >>rather than the present.
> >
> Dennis J. Kosterman replied:
> >Ahh, but what a glorious past!
>
> Oh, I agree, that is the appeal.
>
> producing the music in the present at a disadvantage. It tends to make people
> feel that unless someone is "great" he isn't really making it - at the expense
> of those who produce excellent, but not art-form changing, Jazz.
>
Simon makes a very good point here. I can add that only selecting the
music of the past masters is basically a conservative approach, insofar
as their historial significance has been largely been determined, and a
broad consensus typically reached.
Picking out the significant work of current players is more difficult,
if only due to the lack of perspective. The cliche, "test of time",
obviously applies here. Some might argue that the other cliche, "follow
the fashion", also applies. But the latter is more obvious in reference
to the masters of old. Everybody knows that Coltrane, Davis, Monk, etc.
are great. So buying them is indeed money well spent, but it is also
safe.
I suppose the challenge with selecting the music of today is to have
developed your own ear, and the confidence to trust it. Obviously, the
more you understand the music of the past the better you'll understand
the music of today. But the possibility of being locked into the past
also exists, as exhibited by the resistence bebop received when it first
made the scene. And, as Simon pointed out, there is also the danger of
neglected one's own, both the great and the journeyman.
Perhaps the cliche, "You can never be a hero in your hometown" should be
changed to "You can never be a hero in your own time".
--Bruce
PAUL MACCA
>Total agreement here, CD's are good for that. But you might very much
>appreciate the transistion to high quality mp3's where you can store
>~100 CD's on your hard-drive, and use playlists to tailor your listening
>order just once, for hours and hours at a time.
As convienient as MP3 is, it is a step backwards as far as absolute sound
quality is concerned compared to the red book CD digital audio standard. Go to
http://www.audiophile.nu/
and clink on the technology link to read an article about the compromises that
MP3 compression engenders. Although the article does simplify the topic, it
does make it understandable to the layman.
Glenn Wilson
Richard Thurston <richard...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8esb9a$buo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>Does there come a point in an artist's recording
> career where one says, "Enough! No more from you?"
>
I reached that point with David Murray real early in his career.
Glenn
Richard Thurston
tim_m...@my-deja.com
quite a bit, as I used to listen to rock and only buy a CD every six
months or so. Man, that was great, getting an album and calling up all
my friends about it, soaking it in, not getting a new one until I
learned every detail of every song to the fullest...I'm trying to
recapture that with jazz, playing "Sax Colossus" every morning and
"Kind of Blue" every night. I've had a lot of internal controversy
over what to buy in box and what to span out over the albums. I mean,
if I like Monk a lot (and I do) is it better to slowly pick up his best
CDs, overlaps and all, over the course of a lifetime or spring for the
Riverside set and not buy another album for a year? How does one go
about listening to 15 CDs anyway? Double albums are hard enough; I've
spent the length of a disc trying to pick which one to listen to.
Right now, I'm generally opting to pick up the Impulse Coltrane set,
the Monk Blue Note years, and maybe something by Sonny Rollins (here's
a question: which Sonny label is most worth owning in complete box
form?).
Oh well, I guess I can appreciate the fact that there's always going to
be a great jazz recording that I've never heard, no matter how hard I
try. ;)
-tim-
In article <8enedi$4vg$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>,
"Glenn Wilson" <glenn....@pobox.com> wrote:
> I've been reading the posts from Rick (CineStudy) and lots of others
about
> collecting a certain artist's recorded output, mostly starting with
box
> sets. Don't misunderstand - I think these box sets are great. I own
a few
> myself, although it's mostly stuff I didn't have on LP. I'm just
thinking
> back fondly on my youth and remembering how big a deal it was to go
buy a
> new LP. I would scour the bins for hours to come up with some gem
that I
> didn't have, then play it to death til I wore it out. Every record
was it's
> own entity and existed on it's own merit. Not to mention the great
cover
> art, etc.
>
> I guess this is no different than the 78 days when one would purchase
a
> song! I'm sure guys older than me remember running to the store to
get the
> latest release by whomever.
>
> I'm just imagining Rick sitting there with all this music, all
properly
> catalogued (for the most part) with outtakes, etc. For me, as a
musician, I
> would be overwhelmed and I don't think I would get the same value
from the
> music as I did when I purchased everything separately.
>
> Again, I'm not putting down any of these sets. I think for the most
part,
> it's good for jazz to have it all available in any format.
>
> Just wondering if anyone else who has collected LPs is feeling this
way.
>
> I also think it's another sign that no one is buying jazz, that they
have to
> put together the boxes for the aficionados because they know we'll
pay for
> it, but they couldn't sell the CDs as separate entities.
>
> Just some thoughts!
>
> Glenn
CineStudy
particular affinity for the past. I mean you have that gig as archivist for the
Doors - and the two movies you've produced have been Old "Classics". So, in a
way, your interest in Box sets just continues that. But I know, when I was just
starting, I bought so much stuff which was current.
Simon Weil
>>
That was you,this is me and the next guy (or gal) could be completely
different.
Rick
Richard Thurston
tim_m...@my-deja.com wrote:
How does one go
> about listening to 15 CDs anyway?
>
On after the other.
Though it occasionally drives my wife nuts, I often will listen to a
new disc for a couple of days. This generally amounts to three or
four hours a day around the house. So it works out that I listen to a
new cd four or five times a day for a couple of days.
When I buy a box set I can end up listening to the work for a week
(with some interruptions to be sure) or so.
The Keith Jarrett 'Live at the Bluenote' set was on for about ten
days once until my poor wife cried uncle.
--
Richard Thurston
PAUL MACCA
>I've had a lot of internal controversy over what to buy in box and >what
to span out over the albums. I mean, if I like Monk a lot >(and I
do) is it better to slowly pick up his best CDs, overlaps and >all, over
the course of a lifetime or spring for the Riverside set >and not buy
another album for a year?
If you want to the feeling of buying Monk albums individually, you might want
to pick up his CBS catalog that way. (Those titles are not packaged in a box
set.) Some of them include Monk's Dream, Criss-Cross, Big Band In Concert,
Straight No Chaser, Live At The It Club, and a bunch of others.
Jack Woker
> (here's
> a question: which Sonny Rollins label is most worth owning in complete box
> form?).
Prestige.
Not to denigrate any of the other labels he was on in his prime (50's &
60's). I have it all and love it all. The reason I say Prestige is
that his recordings for that label
are consistemntly brilliant, and the individual CD's tend to be short.
The box consolidates a lot of absolutely great music.
jack
Andrew McKinnon
Dennis J. Kosterman <den...@tds.net> wrote in message
news:3910fcac...@news.tds.net...
>
> Great music is great music, and I want to hear it all. That necessarily
includes
> "the past" as well as the present.
>
It doesn't look as if Rick is short of cash but there are only 24 hours in a
day, and I wonder if it's possible to absorb the back-catalogue at the rate
he's attempting without ignoring the continual stream of new releases.
Personally, I spend more time and money than I can afford on CDs, and still
only cover a fraction of the stuff I'm interested in. Perhaps one day I'll
become a completist, but not while there's so much great new jazz around.
I have no interest in dictating people's listening habits, but there is a
sense in which someone like Rick is living off the adventurousness of an
earlier generation of listeners. If there hadn't been a reasonable number of
people buying each Monk album as it was released, then Monk wouldn't have
had as many opportunities to record, and his legacy would be diminished.
It also seems that this urge to buy huge chunks of back-catalogue is a
modern invention. Sure not everyone in the 50s was into Monk, but those that
weren't were at least buying the *latest* releases by Basie or Ellington or
whoever.
That's probably enough from me, so I'll finish with a suggestion for Rick.
Instead of buying the complete 7CD/8CD Tatum sets on Pablo (has anyone
mentioned these yet), why don't you try 1 or 2 from each set and get hold of
new releases by Georg Grawe, Myra Melford, Marilyn Crispell, Irene
Schweizer, Matt Shipp, Uri Caine, Keith Tippett, Alex Schlippenbach, John
Law, Paul Plimley, and Misha Mengelberg.
Regards,
AJMcK.
Lcfpsf
obligation to like and purchase recordings from all styles and periods of jazz
to be "legitimate".
It is, in my opinion, perfectly ok for someone to have specific musicians,
styles, periods, etc. that he or she prefers and others they don't care for.
I enjoy jazz from Jelly Roll Morton and early Louis Armstrong through early
Ornette Coleman. There was a time when I decided to focus on so-called
avante-garde jazz and listened to a lot of it. After a period of time I came to
the decision that it was not for me.
Buying box sets by Tatum, Miles, Bird, Bill Evans, Pres, Art Pepper, Rollins &
Trane does not mean, as some have suggested, you need to also buy CDs by the
current avante-garde players.
Peter F
JC Martin
> << This has nothing to do with jazz, but I was watching an interview with
> Lou Reed on CNN this past weekend (which seems like a strange place to
> be watching him, not that I think about it) where he was discussing his
> new album, and basically saying just what you have said here. He was
> talking about how his album is very precisely crafted to follow a
> specific progression, and people who make compilation tapes, download
> specific songs off the web, or even use them for mixing, really will
> never understand what he is trying to say. He is the professional, who
> has spent his life making music, and all the 'kids' who try to reprogram
> his music are fools. He did imply that it wasn't just him -- all good
> musicians have a plan for an album, so don't mess with it.
>
> Dan>>
>
>
> Dan,
> This is were my rock experience come in. I have been a fan of Reeds since
his
> days with The Velvet Underground and for years bought every release he put
out
> (a lot on vinyl). Recently I feel he is really out of touch with his music
and
> lost it but that is my opinion. But the point I want to say is in the last
> decade Reed has endorsed not one but two excellent Box sets, One on his
solo
> career and another on The Velvet Underground. No, he did not produce this
> material or even decide the running order. But after they came out (which
was a
> year apart I think) he was on the talk show circuit promoting them. I
remember
> once him saying on MTV he loved all the extras that were found.
>
Rick, I'm a big Lou Reed fan as well and agree that his music went downhill.
But his new record is his best since "New York" IMO. Check it out. I was
very surprised.
-JC
Amos Omondi
Good man.
> ----------
> From: lcf...@aol.com (Lcfpsf)[SMTP:lcf...@aol.com]
> Posted At: Friday, May 05, 2000 8:39 AM
> Posted To: bluenote
> Conversation: Do Box Sets Take The Fun Out?
> Subject: Re: Do Box Sets Take The Fun Out?
Dennis J. Kosterman
>There seems to be a message in many posts on this thread that a person has an
>obligation to like and purchase recordings from all styles and periods of jazz
>to be "legitimate".
>It is, in my opinion, perfectly ok for someone to have specific musicians,
>styles, periods, etc. that he or she prefers and others they don't care for.
>I enjoy jazz from Jelly Roll Morton and early Louis Armstrong through early
>Ornette Coleman. There was a time when I decided to focus on so-called
>avante-garde jazz and listened to a lot of it. After a period of time I came to
>the decision that it was not for me.
>Buying box sets by Tatum, Miles, Bird, Bill Evans, Pres, Art Pepper, Rollins &
>Trane does not mean, as some have suggested, you need to also buy CDs by the
>current avante-garde players.
I can't recall ever having seen this suggested. Most fans of
avant-garde jazz are well aware that it's not for everybody.
But I *have* seen it suggested, or at least implied, that *only*
current music (not necessarily avant-garde, but current -- this would
include relatively traditional players like Keith Jarrett, Wynton
Marsalis, Joshua Redman, Brad Mehldau, etc.) is worth buying or
listening to, that any time or money spent on re-issues of old stuff
is time or money "stolen" from current music.
This makes some sense from an altruistic standpoint -- my money isn't
going to do Charlie Parker any good, but Myra Melford could sure use
some of it. But from a consumer standpoint, it makes no sense at all.
I'm going to buy and listen to music that I like, and whether it's
current or from the past is totally irrelevant. There were geniuses in
the past -- Armstrong, Ellington, Basie, Lester Young, Bird, etc. (not
to mention Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc., not to mention Robert
Johnson or Hank Williams, or...), and they created a lot of great
music. It would be insane to ignore all that great music simply
because it's not "current". It would be equally insane to focus
exclusively on that and ignore all the great music being made today.
Any time you cut off huge slices of the musical pie using an arbitrary
"knife" like past/present (something which has nothing to do with the
*quality* of the music), you risk missing a lot of really good stuff.
I don't want to miss anything (yes, I know I'm "doomed" in that
respect, but I can dream, can't I?).
BTW, none of this is aimed at "Lcfpsf". I think we agree on the main
point, that quality (as perceived by the buyer/listener) is the best
"knife".
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Glenn Wilson
Sonny really shows that he's picked up the torch. His sound during that
period was so distinctive. No one has had a sound like that since. (except
Steve Grossman when he tries to sound like Sonny). His sense of humor
really surfaces and his tune selection is pretty unique for the time.
Glenn
Jack Woker <ste...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:39122B...@ix.netcom.com...
Jack Woker
> This makes some sense from an altruistic standpoint -- my money isn't
> going to do Charlie Parker any good, but Myra Melford could sure use
> some of it. But from a consumer standpoint, it makes no sense at all.
Most people buy records that contain music that they expect will bring
them some enjoyment, and are not particularly concerned about whether or
not they are helping or supporting somebody. Some musicians have been
critical of record companies, suggesting that they can't compete with a
John Coltrane boxed set in the marketplace. Would they rather that all
this great music not be available, so that the newer artists might have
a better chance to be heard?
jack
Glenn Wilson
too. If I get more from it every time I listen after about 5 times, I
consider it some bad shit. I guess a lot depends on taste, etc. I've been
listening to Miles Live at the Plugged Nickel for about a year and half and
still can't get enough (and I had the two issued LPs years before I got the
box set !!
Glenn
Richard Thurston <richard...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8esnce$qi5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Glenn Wilson
outsell new releases, but as a jazz musician and student of the art form, I
always welcome any such collections or any new peek into a great artist's
creative process. I must admit that I buy more reissues than new releases
and when I buy new releases I always try to buy CDs by my friends Luckily,
I have some friends who make some great records :)
Glenn
Jack Woker <ste...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3912E7...@ix.netcom.com...
Glenn Wilson
diplomatic:
I lived in NYC from 1977 to 1991 and witnessed the meteoric rise of David
Murray, mostly, in my opinion, due to his ex-teacher Stanley Crouch's
constant writings in the Village Voice and elsewhere, about what a genius he
was. Gary Giddins followed suit in this case. I think Murray's approach
was interesting and his groups were always fun to watch, but, IMHO, as a
saxophonist he is pretty lame. He doesn't really have control of the
instrument. He doesn't really have a clue how to play over changes. I've
seen this called things like 'oblique phrasing', etc. by critics who are
afraid to have an opinion. It really bugs me when he's called a virtuoso
saxophonist. He's many things, but he is not a saxophone virtuoso. He did
so many recordings in the 80s that it was pretty overwhelming for anyone who
even wanted to keep up.
I don't like people who speak for others to gain validity for their point,
but I wasn't the only saxophonist in NYC at the time who couldn't figure
this out at all. There were so many great saxophonists trying to get a
break and this guy has releases 4 or 5 recordings a year. I also knew a few
guys who played in his groups who really didn't dig him, but he had a lot of
gigs so....
Again, this is just my opinion, but I think it's the classic case of the
Emperor's New Clothes. In Murray's case, he did himself in by recording so
prolifically.
Glenn
Richard Thurston <richard...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8eskj0$n8p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8esfuv$omc$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Glenn Wilson" <glenn....@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > Richard Thurston <richard...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8esb9a$buo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > >Does there come a point in an artist's recording
> > > career where one says, "Enough! No more from you?"
> > >
> >
> > I reached that point with David Murray real early in his career.
> >
> > Glenn
> >
> >
>
> --
> Any particular reason?
>
Bruce LeClaire
Glenn Wilson wrote (in part):
>
> [David Murray] doesn't really have control of the
> instrument. He doesn't really have a clue how to play over changes. I've
> seen this called things like 'oblique phrasing', etc. by critics who are
> afraid to have an opinion. It really bugs me when he's called a virtuoso
> saxophonist.
The first time I discovered David Murray was on a TV special about tenor
sax hosts by Branford Marasalis (surprise!). They mostly covered the
"safe" giants of yesteryear, but did save a few minutes at the end for a
glimpse at a couple of modernists. Dave was one of them, playing at a
club in NYC (Vanguard, Blue Note???). I was really impressed by the way
he played a solo mostly "off" the horn (altissomo + lots and lots of
harmonics). He had an impressive amount of control of the harmonics,
doing fast phrased runs. Stuff I don't hear others doing everyday.
A few years back I caught a talk he give in Cambridge (kind of a
workshop thing, open to the public) and remember him talking about
playing with the Dead the night before. Articulate, and nice too. I
remember one other thing he said, that a musician should learn how to
play bebop before learning how to play out or free. Interesting in
light of Glenn's comment about playing over the changes above.
But I haven't listened to Murray for awhile (hmmm...), and I'll be
adding him to my to-listen-to list (2L2L), rmb is great for this!
--Bruce
PS- My spell-checker keeps trying to replace Murray with Murky.
Coincidence? You decide!
sendt...@yahoo.com
"Glenn Wilson" <glenn....@pobox.com> wrote:
> Just wondering if anyone else who has collected LPs is feeling this
way.
Anything that lets me get Clifford Brown's "complete" Blue Note output
for $24 (including shipping) from BMG is a good thing by me. Now the
$125 for the other box set is a different animal altogther... :-)
Someone can always start w/ Verve Jazz Masters, Compact Jazz, or the
other compilation series to start listening to an artist on the cheap.
I'm not knocking doing it the cheap way; not everybody can spend the $$
or wants to when just starting out not knowing anything about who they
are listening to.
Glenn Wilson
this as a slight, but a lot of the stuff Murray does sounds impressive to
the non-saxophonist but is not as difficult as it sounds.
I know he espouses being able to play bebop now. Early in his career it
wasn't so important, but when he started making cheap-to-produce, acoustic,
straight-ahead, standards albums, he suddenly was a bebop player.
The thing that really defines how a player play bebop is where he puts the
notes. Players like Bird, Trane, Miles, Sonny, Monk, etc. have a distinct
place that they put the notes within the swing feel. Murray wiggles his
fingers and blows. Not that everyone has to fit in to a rhythmic pattern.
I like to 'float' above the rhythm as well as the next guy, but when you try
to 'dig in' to the time and play a line or something, you've got to be able
to do that. I don't think Murray can. He also has no harmonic concept over
changes. Some guys play 'in' all the time. Some guys play 'outside' all
the time. Most people mix it up. I've never heard him play over changes
where I thought he made any sense.
Also, everything I'm talking about is based on his pre-1990 music. I have
no idea what he sounds like now. He may have 'learned' how to play the sax
since then.
So I probably should just keep my mouth shut. Anyway this is
JUST MY OPINION
Glenn
Bruce LeClaire <bw...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3912F63A...@mindspring.com...
Richard Thurston
"Glenn Wilson" <glenn....@pobox.com> wrote:
> Bruce - I don't know if you play sax or not, and, if so, please don't
take
> this as a slight, but a lot of the stuff Murray does sounds
impressive to
> the non-saxophonist but is not as difficult as it sounds.
The ability of a musician to communicate to an audience does not
always depend on the 'difficulty' of the music he/she plays. This is
one reason I very often take what artists/musicians have to say
about their peers with a grain of salt.
In the same way that Mark Rothko painting a floating rectangle may
not 'be difficult', one may be stating a possible fact at the expense
of a larger truth.
That is the results for and effects on an audience are beyond a
simple discussion of how a thing is made.
>
> I know he espouses being able to play bebop now. Early in his
career it
> wasn't so important, but when he started making
cheap-to-produce, acoustic,
> straight-ahead, standards albums, he suddenly was a bebop
player.
Journalists are often not very imaginative creatures and labels
help them to write articles and make their deadlines. I have heard
Murray describe himself as keenly interested in a varitey of musics
including bebop. I haven't heard him describe himself as a bebop
musician.
>
> The thing that really defines how a player play bebop is where he
puts the
> notes. Players like Bird, Trane, Miles, Sonny, Monk, etc. have a
distinct
> place that they put the notes within the swing feel. Murray
wiggles his
> fingers and blows.
Ouch.
Not that everyone has to fit in to a rhythmic pattern.
> I like to 'float' above the rhythm as well as the next guy, but when
you try
> to 'dig in' to the time and play a line or something, you've got to
be able
> to do that. I don't think Murray can.
I think he can and I think I've heard him do just that in performance
and on record.
He also has no harmonic concept over
> changes.
Ouch.
Some guys play 'in' all the time. Some guys play 'outside' all
> the time. Most people mix it up. I've never heard him play over
changes
> where I thought he made any sense.
Ouch. Ouch.
>
> Also, everything I'm talking about is based on his pre-1990
music. I have
> no idea what he sounds like now. He may have 'learned' how to
play the sax
> since then.
> So I probably should just keep my mouth shut. Anyway this is
>
> JUST MY OPINION
>
> Glenn
>
Interesting. I've enjoyed Murray on record and in performance
myself.
--
Richard Thurston
Glenn Wilson
>
> The ability of a musician to communicate to an audience does not
> always depend on the 'difficulty' of the music he/she plays.
True - I was just responding to Bruce's comment about harmonics, etc.
>
> In the same way that Mark Rothko painting a floating rectangle may
> not 'be difficult', one may be stating a possible fact at the expense
> of a larger truth.
>
This gets back to the question of whether Mark Rothko can paint a bowl of
fruit. I say Murray never learned to play the saxophone before he became a
'jazz' player.
> That is the results for and effects on an audience are beyond a
> simple discussion of how a thing is made.
> >
The discussion of the art of playing sax and jazz has nothing to do with
audience reaction. Murray gets most of his audience reaction by rolling his
eyes up in his head, blowing as hard as possible, jumping around, etc.
Audiences love this, no doubt. Still doesn't make him a good saxophonist
(IMHO).
> Journalists are often not very imaginative creatures and labels
> help them to write articles and make their deadlines. I have heard
> Murray describe himself as keenly interested in a varitey of musics
> including bebop. I haven't heard him describe himself as a bebop
> musician.
> >
My point was that when he had a little more funding early in his career, he
didn't do much recording of what anyone would call standards or tunes.
Later, it was an advantage to be able to record standards, etc., something
he had no training in and was not very good at (IMHO).
>
> Not that everyone has to fit in to a rhythmic pattern.
> > I like to 'float' above the rhythm as well as the next guy, but when
> you try
> > to 'dig in' to the time and play a line or something, you've got to
> be able
> > to do that. I don't think Murray can.
>
> I think he can and I think I've heard him do just that in performance
> and on record.
Maybe you've heard him more than me. How would you descibe his rhythmic
concept?
>
>
> Interesting. I've enjoyed Murray on record and in performance
> myself.
I've enjoyed him in perfomance, too. That still doesn't mean he's a
virtuoso saxophonist. I just got sick of the press telling us how great
this guy was when just about every sax player I knew thought he was shuckin'
and jivin'
Again, this is my expression of my opinion about one guy, but I think his
success in the 80's screwed up the scene quite a bit.
Glenn
Richard Thurston
"Glenn Wilson" <glenn....@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Richard Thurston <richard...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8ev62u$hmg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > The ability of a musician to communicate to an audience does not
> > always depend on the 'difficulty' of the music he/she plays.
>
> True - I was just responding to Bruce's comment about harmonics, etc.
>
> >
> > In the same way that Mark Rothko painting a floating rectangle may
> > not 'be difficult', one may be stating a possible fact at the
expense
> > of a larger truth.
> >
> This gets back to the question of whether Mark Rothko can paint a
bowl of
> fruit. I say Murray never learned to play the saxophone before he
became a
> 'jazz' player.
Arthur Blythe, Hicks, Bluiett, DeJohnette et. al. are mistaken? he
can't play so all these guys hire/play with him?
>
> > That is the results for and effects on an audience are beyond a
> > simple discussion of how a thing is made.
> > >
> The discussion of the art of playing sax and jazz has nothing to do
with
> audience reaction. Murray gets most of his audience reaction by
rolling his
> eyes up in his head, blowing as hard as possible, jumping around, etc.
> Audiences love this, no doubt. Still doesn't make him a good
saxophonist(IMHO).
You certainly don't give the audience much credit. Only another
saxophonist is competent to judge what a 'good saxophonist' is? Oddly
enough I was under the impression that the audiences I've sat in were
taken by Murray's music.
>
>
> > Journalists are often not very imaginative creatures and labels
> > help them to write articles and make their deadlines. I have heard
> > Murray describe himself as keenly interested in a varitey of musics
> > including bebop. I haven't heard him describe himself as a bebop
> > musician.
> > >
> My point was that when he had a little more funding early in his
career, he
> didn't do much recording of what anyone would call standards or tunes.
> Later, it was an advantage to be able to record standards, etc.,
something
> he had no training in and was not very good at (IMHO).
Lots of musicians have moved back and forth between standards and
original material.
> >
> > Not that everyone has to fit in to a rhythmic pattern.
> > > I like to 'float' above the rhythm as well as the next guy, but
when
> > you try
> > > to 'dig in' to the time and play a line or something, you've got
to
> > be able
> > > to do that. I don't think Murray can.
> >
> > I think he can and I think I've heard him do just that in
performance
> > and on record.
>
> Maybe you've heard him more than me. How would you descibe his
rhythmic
> concept?
Idiosyncratic.
> >
> >
> > Interesting. I've enjoyed Murray on record and in performance
> > myself.
>
> I've enjoyed him in perfomance, too. That still doesn't mean he's a
> virtuoso saxophonist. I just got sick of the press telling us how
great
> this guy was when just about every sax player I knew thought he was
shuckin'
> and jivin'
No one has suggested he was a 'virtuoso' saxophonist. The term was only
mentioned by you. And you are making the point he isn't. Bruce
mentioned he found Murray to play in a way he didn't hear everyday. I
would agree.
>
> Again, this is my expression of my opinion about one guy, but I think
his
> success in the 80's screwed up the scene quite a bit.
>
> Glenn
>
>
Sour grapes?
Jack Woker
>
> Jack - as a recording musician, I am dismayed that reissues usually always
> outsell new releases, but as a jazz musician and student of the art form, I
> always welcome any such collections or any new peek into a great artist's
> creative process. I must admit that I buy more reissues than new releases
I think this has to do with the state of the music today. It has
matured, leveled off, if you will. While there are some very fine and
talented musicians today (I know, sounds like damning with faint
praise), is there anyone that is breaking new ground the way that
Armstrong, Bird, Miles, and Trane did in their days? The most popular
musicians are people like Wynton Marsalis, Joshua Redman, et al, who
clearly admit that they are preserving/upholding a tradition.
jack
Blue Lake
Murray's most recent CD is called "Octet Plays Trane" (Justin Time) and
includes a transcription of Trane's "Giant Steps" solo played by the full
band.
It seemed for awhile there that Murray wanted to be Albert Ayler and Ben
Webster at the same time. But I've generally been attracted to his 1980's
octet records on Black Saint and his work with the World Saxophone Quartet.
Lazaro Vega
Amos Omondi
On this one you are absolutely 100% correct. Murray is a talented
fellow,
but he has been completely over-rated. The adulation he got in the 80s
and early 90s (from critics and fans alike) went far beyond his
abilities or
whatever of it he actually displayed. Most of it was largely a "me-too"
thing: people feeling they had to praise Murray and buy his music in
order
to be where the action was. And the other thing with the avant-con is
that few people ever dare to call dodgy dodgy, just in case there is
something they missed and so might later look stupid. Oblique phrasing.
We give him credit for lately playing some
standards, but sometimes it seems to be too little too late. Basically,
can
the drama and there is not as much as one thought. Murray
(unintentionally) tok a lot of pople for a ride, and now those people
are
starting to wake up. Cat really has no clothes on.
Thomas F Brown
Glenn Wilson <glenn....@pobox.com> wrote:
>I've been reading the posts from Rick (CineStudy) and lots of others about
>collecting a certain artist's recorded output, mostly starting with box
>myself, although it's mostly stuff I didn't have on LP. I'm just thinking
>back fondly on my youth and remembering how big a deal it was to go buy a
>new LP. I would scour the bins for hours to come up with some gem that I
>didn't have, then play it to death til I wore it out. Every record was it's
>own entity and existed on it's own merit. Not to mention the great cover
>art, etc.
>
>I guess this is no different than the 78 days when one would purchase a
>song! I'm sure guys older than me remember running to the store to get the
>latest release by whomever.
>
>I'm just imagining Rick sitting there with all this music, all properly
>catalogued (for the most part) with outtakes, etc. For me, as a musician, I
>would be overwhelmed and I don't think I would get the same value from the
>music as I did when I purchased everything separately.
>
>Again, I'm not putting down any of these sets. I think for the most part,
>it's good for jazz to have it all available in any format.
>
Yeah, I feel this way, especially when the original album had
some thought given to collecting the best tracks from a session
and arranging them in a creative order. No matter how much attention
a box editor gives this, it's never going to be the same as when
it was done in the moment by the principles. Also, I don't need
all the alternate takes. Boring. Give me the best one. I hate
hearing the same tune over and over.
Thomas F Brown
PAUL MACCA <paul...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>This reminds me of the kind of discussion that arose in the Steely Dan mailing
>list, when the longtime fans who bought the original LPs were dissing the
>younger fans who bought the "Citizen Steely Dan" box set. A few vets were all
>too eager to call the box set purchasers as not being "true fans." Yet, when
>it came to discussion on other topics, I found that the newer fans tended to
>talk more about the music and the performances while the vets tended to discuss
>all the various matrix numbers of foreign pressings of "Katy Lied."
This is probably beating a dead horse, but the mastering on the SD box
blows away the original MCA single CDs.
Blue Lake
Amos Omondi <ASA...@ntu.edu.sg> wrote in message
news:0CF260C495FED111A661...@mail3.ntu.edu.sg...
The thing about Murray which gets frustrating: who is he? If individualism
is a key to jazz, then blowing from Albert Ayler's continuum one year and
Ben Webster's subtone world the next seems to blurr one's chance to hear who
Murray really is. And maybe that's "evolution" but it came off more as
something else to me.
LV
>
>
>
Mark Henteleff
Amos Omondi <ASA...@ntu.edu.sg> wrote:
>Glenn,
>
>On this one you are absolutely 100% correct. Murray is a talented
>fellow,
>but he has been completely over-rated. The adulation he got in the 80s
>and early 90s (from critics and fans alike) went far beyond his
>abilities or
>whatever of it he actually displayed. Most of it was largely a "me-too"
>
>thing: people feeling they had to praise Murray and buy his music in
>order
>to be where the action was. And the other thing with the avant-con is
>that few people ever dare to call dodgy dodgy, just in case there is
>something they missed and so might later look stupid. Oblique phrasing.
>
>We give him credit for lately playing some
>standards, but sometimes it seems to be too little too late. Basically,
>can
>the drama and there is not as much as one thought. Murray
>(unintentionally) tok a lot of pople for a ride, and now those people
>are
>starting to wake up. Cat really has no clothes on.
>
>
a while here. Murray's talent and taste has been overshadowed
and tainted by his huge recorded output, *some* of which is good
to mediocre and *much* of which is outstanding. Murray's records
The Hill, Spirituals, Hope Scope, and Sanctuary Within rank among
the greatest recordings ever made by a tenor sax player...both
in terms of improvisation and composition. He has the most
distinctive and original voice on tenor since Coltrane. That
said, he has put out a few duds...mainly the stuff done with
John Hicks and the Red Baron label stuff. His stuff with
Dave Burrell has been consistently high quality.
Emperor's new clothes, my ass. The same stuff has been said
about Miles Davis. The only thing both may be guilty of is
over exposure to the undiscerning and unappreciative jazz snob.
Mark H.
Michel Forest
Glenn Wilson wrote:
> This gets back to the question of whether Mark Rothko can paint a bowl of
> fruit.
Ultimately, I think this is an irrelevant question..
But, like you, I do not like Murray's music much. I used to be a fan, at one
point I owned about 16 of his albums (including some rare DIW cd's) and I ended
up selling all of them. I find him pretty boring now.
JC Martin
news:8f04op$97v$1...@news.hawaii.edu...
Mark, for once we agree in a very big way. Dead-on.
-JC
Amos Omondi
Murray's talent. The question is whether the really huge reputation
actually
matched what was there. I don't think you've answered that. And I
stand by my claim that Murray has had his day: from now on, you'll
see fewer recordings and less interest in Murray. You heard it hear
first.
And exactly how does your ass enter the picture?
> ----------
> From: ma...@pbrc.hawaii.edu (Mark
> Henteleff)[SMTP:ma...@pbrc.hawaii.edu]
> Posted At: Saturday, May 06, 2000 11:49 AM
> Posted To: bluenote
> Conversation: David Murray
> Subject: Re: David Murray
> Wow!...I haven't seen this much crap spewed on a thread in quite
> a while here. Murray's talent and taste has been overshadowed
> and tainted by his huge recorded output, *some* of which is good
> to mediocre and *much* of which is outstanding. Murray's records
> The Hill, Spirituals, Hope Scope, and Sanctuary Within rank among
> the greatest recordings ever made by a tenor sax player...both
> in terms of improvisation and composition. He has the most
> distinctive and original voice on tenor since Coltrane. That
> said, he has put out a few duds...mainly the stuff done with
> John Hicks and the Red Baron label stuff. His stuff with
> Dave Burrell has been consistently high quality.
>
Simon Weil
>It seemed for awhile there that Murray wanted to be Albert Ayler and Ben
>Webster at the same time. But I've generally been attracted to his 1980's
>octet records on Black Saint and his work with the World Saxophone Quartet.
>
Like he had this big, impressive, sort of rooted in the tradition tone, but
there was also a relentless, leave no space quality to his playing (I haven't
heard his new stuff). From moment to moment, he seemed to have to go on and on.
It seemed to me that he was afraid of standing back and hearing what he had
done even in the moment. I didn't see how he would be able to develop.
Simon Weil
uli_...@my-deja.com
Mr. Osmondi writes:
" from now on, you'll see
fewer recordings and less interest in Murray. You heard it hear first"
think i bought about 4 new Murray albums just in the last half year.
Marcel Safier
Over-rated/under-rated, technically accomplished/amateurish,
Ayler/Webster - phooey! I just use my ears and I like what I hear.
Living in Australia I am fairly removed from the hype - I just have
wonderful memories of a World Saxophone Qt. concert and many of David's
recordings to go on and those performances satisfy me. A great variety
of musical situations to choose from - solo, duet with piano (Dave
Burrell, John Hicks, Donal Fox, Kenny Barron) and drums, trio, quartet,
quintet, octet, big band, electric, acoustic. Yes prolific but trying
to keep fresh and interesting along with it IMO.
Oh, I run the David Murray Home Page by the way.....
http://members.tripod.com/go54321/dm/davidmurray.html
Cheers!
Marcel
--
Marcel Safier
Queensland Australia
msa...@ozemail.com.au
Glenn Wilson
> Only another saxophonist is competent to judge what a 'good saxophonist'
is?
Richard - this is an interesting question that's been discussed many times
on this ng and always seems to inspire some interesting posts.
My answer to your question is yes. I know a lot of other jazz musicians
other than saxophonists, who don't like Murray, and they talk about it from
a jazz improvisation, phrasing, etc. point of view, but I was discussing his
saxophone playing specifically and, yes, only another saxophonist is
qualified to make that judgment. (DUCK).
The audience, unfortunately, is way down the totem pole in being able to
judge anything as it relates to the specifics of what we've been talking
about.
> >
> >
> > > Journalists are often not very imaginative creatures and labels
> > > help them to write articles and make their deadlines. I have heard
> > > Murray describe himself as keenly interested in a varitey of musics
> > > including bebop. I haven't heard him describe himself as a bebop
> > > musician.
> > > >
> Lots of musicians have moved back and forth between standards and
> original material.
True, but most of their original material has been standard-ish. Murray's
early stuff not as it applied to playing over changes.
> Idiosyncratic.
That's an interesting term, but doesn't tell me much musically. > > > >
>
>
> No one has suggested he was a 'virtuoso' saxophonist.
They absolutely DID refer to him as a virtuoso, which is what got a lot of
guys up in arms. Whether you liked his jazz or not, now we have major
publications, PR groups, JAZZPAR Sweden, etc. telling us he's a virtuoso.
That was one of my original points. Many saxophonists at the time were kind
of shocked at this situation.
> >
> >
> Sour grapes?
There is always a certain amount of sour grapes in any discussion like this.
I'll own that. The original thread started out talking about box sets,etc.
and you brought up
> >Does there come a point in an artist's recording
> > career where one says, "Enough! No more from you?"
I suggested, for me, Murray was way overrecorded and tried to describe a
little about what the scene was like in NYC at the time he came up. I
probably should have taken my original suggestion to myself and taken this
offline. Now it's spreading and we can't stop IT!!!!! ARRRGGGHHH
Truth be told, I admire anyone out there who's trying to play this music in
any way, shape or form.
Glenn
PAUL MACCA
>> Only another saxophonist is competent to judge what a 'good saxophonist'
>is?
>
>Richard - this is an interesting question that's been discussed many times
>on this ng and always seems to inspire some interesting posts.
>
>My answer to your question is yes. I know a lot of other jazz musicians
>other than saxophonists, who don't like Murray, and they talk about it from
>a jazz improvisation, phrasing, etc. point of view, but I was discussing his
>saxophone playing specifically and, yes, only another saxophonist is
>qualified to make that judgment. (DUCK).
And so, in your world, only fellow musicians can properly appreciate what is
and is not good jazz?
I guess this means you shouldn't also critique movie actors, unless you also
have appeared on celluloid? Or you aren't qualified to discuss politics unless
you have been elected to office before?
>The audience, unfortunately, is way down the totem pole in being able to
>judge anything as it relates to the specifics of what we've been talking
>about.
New meaning to the term "elitist."
Glenn Wilson
PAUL MACCA <paul...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000508014512...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
> Glenn Wilson wrote:
>
> And so, in your world, only fellow musicians can properly appreciate what
is
> and is not good jazz?
>
what that term means, but I think it's true that only a fellow saxophonist
can really understand what a saxophonist is playing and what it takes to
play that on the horn. This would seem obvious to me. If I'm listening to
Miles/Dizzy/Wynton/Hagans with a trumpet player, I can talk about his
phrasing, choice of notes, swing feel, licks, etc. but only the trumpeter
can listen to him and 'feel' and understand what it takes to play what he
plays. This is true for any instrument.
> I guess this means you shouldn't also critique movie actors, unless you
also
> have appeared on celluloid? Or you aren't qualified to discuss politics
unless
> you have been elected to office before?
>
Yes, you shouldn't critique movie actors unless you've studied acting,
directing, etc. Absolutely. My wife is an acting teacher, and she sees
things in actors that only a 'professional' could see. There are too many
times when the public and even untrained critics don't have a clue what
they're looking at. Of course, they can enjoy it, and even discuss it, but
they don't bring the background to really understand what they're talking
about unless they've seriously studied or, better yet, seriously studied and
actually done it.
You are qualified to discuss the 'ideas' behind politics and political
platforms, but you can't discuss the business of politics without some
deeper understanding of what the process is. This either comes from a lot
of reading and studying about it, or, going through it. Would you think
that if any one of us were in a room with Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and
Strom Thurmond (trying to cover all my bases :)) that we would be as
qualified to discuss the business of politics as any of the other three? I
don' think so.
Not sure what business you're in Paul. Forgive me if you're a professional
musician, but, if you were, I don't think you would ask the question. Think
about your business. When you're talking to one of your co-workers about
something, if that co-worker is on the same level as you or even better at
what he/she does there is a certainly vocabulary that can be dispensed with.
A certain level of understanding that no one outside your business could
really participate in unless they had those skills.
This is a big problem, IN MY OPINION, with a lot of the 'arts' these days,
but certainly a discussion for another thread.
> >The audience, unfortunately, is way down the totem pole in being able to
> >judge anything as it relates to the specifics of what we've been talking
> >about.
>
> New meaning to the term "elitist."
You've applied my definition to your term. I wouldn't call it elitist at
all. See above.
Thanks, Peter
Glenn
Marcel-Franck Simon
: My point was that when he had a little more funding early in his career, he
: didn't do much recording of what anyone would call standards or tunes.
: he had no training in and was not very good at (IMHO).
You've slagged Murray left and right with factual-sounding allegations
(e.g. 'he can't play bebop' or 'he does not have a harmonic concept over
changes'), you've intimated to those that object that they don't know what
they're talking about (e.g. 'I don't know if you play the saxophone'), and
now you're making historical claims (e.g. 'didn't do much recording of...
standards or tunes.')
Your careful 'my opinion' butt-covering aside, it sure sounds like you're
asserting facts rather than opinions about Murray. FWIW, the only assertion
you make about Murray that makes sense to me is that he makes too many
records, so it's impossible to keep up; you could also have said that too
many of those records were too similar to each other, so they sounded alike
which reduced their effectiveness. You should have noted that other
musicians have the same problems, e.g. Hank Mobley, or Sonny Stitt, or
Steve Lacy.
I've listened to multiple dozens of Murray albums, and seen him live over
fifty times, over the last twenty years. It is my firm opinion that all of
the following assertions are bullshit:
- he can't play bebop
- he has no control of the horn
- he has no harmonic conception over changes
- he did not play standards or tunes
- his rhythmic conception is weak
I base this opinions on having seen and heard him play bebop, control
his horn, reharmonize his line on the fly over steady changes, play
standards and tunes (written both by him and by others), and engage in
truly amazing exchanges with percussionists that stretched and reshaped
the time all sorts of ways.
I'll also note that I've heard a number of his albums and seen a number
of his gigs, where he seemed indifferent and mechanical. I wish he'd
rejected the record date, or focused himself at the gig. I also know that
I'm not at my best every single day I go to work, and sometimes coast
with less than my usual complement of energy and creativity. I'm glad this
doesn't get me fired on the spot, so I'm willing to give musicians some
slack about it, even as I might grumble about the wasted $20 cover charge
and 2-drink minimum. These days it'd take a lot to get me to go see yet
another Murray-bass-drum trio or add-piano quartet performance. OTOH
Murray in different contexts, e.g. with Kahil El'Zabar or with the
Guadeloupean musicians, can and in my experience has been transcendent.
: Again, this is my expression of my opinion about one guy, but I think his
: success in the 80's screwed up the scene quite a bit.
I don't understand this enough to respond to it. Can you elaborate?
--
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