Movie : "Bird" question ?
Lane R. Lesperance
a real person or someone else ?
Thanks,
Lane Lesperance la...@omnifest.uwm.edu
PS. Picked up 3 real nice CD's at Best Buy tonight
Surrender to the Air Marshall Allen, Trey Anastasio, others
Primo Cal Tjader
How Long Has This Been Going On Van Morrison
Jack Woker
Lesperance) writes:
>
>Does the character Buster Franklin (the sax r&b man) represent
>a real person or someone else ?
One assumes that this character was inspired by Buster Smith, the
saxophonist who Bird named as his earliest influence. The highly
fictionalized treatment of this character has little to do with the
real Buster Smith! In fact, this highly fictionalized movie has little
to do with the real Bird!!!
jack
Jeff Beer
My take was that character was not supposed to be a real person, but
rather a composite character of many musicians. As you recall, he threw
his saxophone in the river. I am sure many real life musicians have
been so frustrated at trying to play jazz, then along comes Bird who
is playing music at a level completely past anything that person had in
mind. I am sure there were many saxophones thrown against the wall and
what have you. A friend of mine told me he was talking to someone
who used to play, but he stopped playing after attending the concert now known
to the world as the Complete Live at the Plugged Nickel by Miles Davis.
As for the R&B scene at the end, it is not an actual event in Bird's life,
but it still actually represents something what happened in the larger
picture. Remember he goes to a club on 52 street and finds it a strip
club. I don't think there is an actual club on 52 street like this,
but one famous example is the Lighthouse, which turned into a strip
club, but this happened in the early 70s. Then the R&B scene has tons
of people from white middle america (blond baby boomers, right?) screaming
for this kind of black music, and not the music that Bird played.
In the end, Bird's music is not accepted by mainstream America, and the
jazz scene which supported this music disappeared.
While these actual events may have been fiction, in the larger sense they do
demonstrate what happened with Bird.
Jeff
John
: Does the character Buster Franklin (the sax r&b man) represent
: a real person or someone else ?
: Thanks,
: Lane Lesperance la...@omnifest.uwm.edu
:
: PS. Picked up 3 real nice CD's at Best Buy tonight
:
: Surrender to the Air Marshall Allen, Trey Anastasio, others
: Primo Cal Tjader
I remember reading a review of the movie when it came out. Buster is
just a "composite character" of many cats back then doing that sort of thing.
John
John Burton
The character "Buster Franklin" was, to me, the most single
offensive aspect of the movie "Bird."
He had nothing in common with "Prof." Buster Smith, Bird's KC
mentor, and the use of the common first name (and resulting
confusion) was a crime.
Prof. Smith was a fantastic player who encouraged Bird and always
stayed close to his roots, the opposite of the character in the
movie.
And how was that guy supposed to just be walking down 52d street
and hear Bird for the first time?? What musician is going to
throw his horn in the river?? come on.
The R&B scene at the end was totally non-Bird. Bird used to
frustrate his followers because he had much broader musical taste
than they did. I have heard thousands of Bird anecdotes, but
never one single instance where he put down another musician or
musical form.
John Burton
--
John Burton
Telephone: (818) 449-8300
Fax: (818) 449-4417
Richard Tabnik
focus on what I feel is the worst impact of the movie: a lie
is now legal and, worse yet, the truth has been made illegal!!
I refer to the erasure of the original artists that played
with Charlie Parker; specifically, the tracks with Lennie
Tristano and Kenny Clarke are unavailable legally in their
and true original form!
Regardless of who is at fault, it is clear that never before
in jazz has a movie caused the actual erasure of important
music.
The fans demand: the release of the original
Bird-Tristano-Klook sides and just compensation to their
estates! In fact, why not a "Bird: Not the Movie" album? A
guaranteed hit!
The Parker-Tristano-Clarke material is so very important
because it indicates, I believe, where Bird "wanted to go".
His playing is different with Tristano, and inspired. He's
even playing tunes he usually didn't play. The fact these
contemporaneous innovators are being 'separated' takes on
even more ominous overtones when one realizes that Tristano
was a great artist who never compromised his art; never sold
out. He was one of jazz's greatest and many people have motive
to suppress that. It is also not generally know that Bird
and Lennie were scheduled to do a gig together in Boston
but, unfortunatley, Bird died before it could happen...
Best wishes for a happy life in a peaceful world.
Sincerely,
Richard Tabnik, Jazz Alto Saxophonist
e-mail: <rcta...@inch.com>
WWW Page: <http://www.inch.com/~rctabnik>
"The Jazz Musician's function is to feel."-Lennie Tristano
Dale Smoak
All the controversy over the movie "BIRD" has neglected to
focus on what I feel is the worst impact of the movie: a lie
is now legal and, worse yet, the truth has been made illegal!!
I refer to the erasure of the original artists that played
with Charlie Parker; specifically, the tracks with Lennie
Tristano and Kenny Clarke are unavailable legally in their
and true original form!
Regardless of who is at fault, it is clear that never before
in jazz has a movie caused the actual erasure of important
music.
Nor did this movie. You are correct, of course, that the
Parker-Tristano-Clarke tracks should be available, but no master tapes or
any other archive was "erased."
You don't do your cause justice when the hyperbole you use leads you to
state untruths. It allows people to dismiss you as a crank.
contemporaneous innovators are being 'separated' takes on
even more ominous overtones when one realizes that Tristano
was a great artist who never compromised his art; never sold
out. He was one of jazz's greatest and many people have motive
to suppress that. It is also not generally know that Bird
Please name the principals in this outrageous conspiracy. Thanks.
--
Dale Smoak | da...@shore.net
| http://www.shore.net/~dales/
Jack Woker
writes:
>
>All the controversy over the movie "BIRD" has neglected to
>focus on what I feel is the worst impact of the movie: a lie
>is now legal and, worse yet, the truth has been made illegal!!
>
>I refer to the erasure of the original artists that played
>with Charlie Parker; specifically, the tracks with Lennie
>Tristano and Kenny Clarke are unavailable legally in their
>and true original form!
>
>Regardless of who is at fault, it is clear that never before
>in jazz has a movie caused the actual erasure of important
>music.
>
>Bird-Tristano-Klook sides and just compensation to their
>estates! In fact, why not a "Bird: Not the Movie" album? A
>guaranteed hit!
>
>The Parker-Tristano-Clarke material is so very important
>because it indicates, I believe, where Bird "wanted to go".
> His playing is different with Tristano, and inspired. He's
>even playing tunes he usually didn't play. The fact these
>even more ominous overtones when one realizes that Tristano
>was a great artist who never compromised his art; never sold
>out. He was one of jazz's greatest and many people have motive
> to suppress that. It is also not generally know that Bird
>but, unfortunatley, Bird died before it could happen...
>
>Best wishes for a happy life in a peaceful world.
> Sincerely,
>Richard Tabnik, Jazz Alto Saxophonist
>e-mail: <rcta...@inch.com>
>WWW Page: <http://www.inch.com/~rctabnik>
>"The Jazz Musician's function is to feel."-Lennie Tristano
>
Me & I Can't believe That You're in Love With Me) are available in
undubbed form on two different CD's:
Bird's Eyes Vol. 1/4 (PHILOLOGY 5/18-2)
More Unissued Vol. 1 (ROYAL JAZZ 505)
> While I deplore the altering of classic music (revisionism?), it's
not difficult to understand why they felt they had to make these
recordings sound clearer. Admittedly, the record sounds artificial, but
it wasn't that noticeable to me when I saw the movie. In fact, the
scenes of Bird performing were the only worthwhile moments in the
entire film!
jack
>
>
>
>
>
>
Richard Tabnik
>In article <4jhcum$4...@sleepy.inch.com> Richard Tabnik <rcta...@inch.com> writes:
>
> All the controversy over the movie "BIRD" has neglected to
> focus on what I feel is the worst impact of the movie: a lie
> is now legal and, worse yet, the truth has been made illegal!!
>
> I refer to the erasure of the original artists that played
> with Charlie Parker; specifically, the tracks with Lennie
> Tristano and Kenny Clarke are unavailable legally in their
> and true original form!
>
> Regardless of who is at fault, it is clear that never before
> in jazz has a movie caused the actual erasure of important
> music.
>
>Parker-Tristano-Clarke tracks should be available, but no master tapes or
>any other archive was "erased."
>
>You don't do your cause justice when the hyperbole you use leads you to
>state untruths. It allows people to dismiss you as a crank.
Dale-
As far as the public is concerned, that music is erased; it is unavailable
currently in any legal form. The people who have legal control of that
music at this time are just sitting on it. There have been no plans made
public or
mention of any possibility of *ever* releasing that music.
It is, therefore, erased from
the public awareness. There is little mention of that
music anywhere, or of the deep association between Lennie and Bird.
They were
scheduled to do a gig in Boston, but Bird died before it could happen!
Bird had, according to Lennie, even talked to him about starting a
record company together and recording together! That would
have been truly amazing and would have really changed the
course of jazz! But you probably think
that is hyperbole too, or perhaps you think Lennie was lying.
BTW,
although there may be other copies of that music elsewhere, how do you
really know what the producers of the Bird movie did with the tapes?
Are they storing them?
If so, where and for how long? How careful are they? It is not
as simplistic as „they didnĽt erase the tapesľ. There is more
to this scene, as I have said...
>
> contemporaneous innovators are being 'separated' takes on
> even more ominous overtones when one realizes that Tristano
> was a great artist who never compromised his art; never sold
> out. He was one of jazz's greatest and many people have motive
> to suppress that. It is also not generally know that Bird
>
>Please name the principals in this outrageous conspiracy. Thanks.
>
Wilhelm Reich once said something to the effect that
that „people donĽt have to be taking their orders from a central
location to be part of a conspiracy; they just are like that!ľ. Whether
it is your kneejerk hostile reactions to my postings,
exclusion from books and the press, or the
consistent exclusion of anyone associated and/or truly
influenced by him from gigs and the
media, the fact remains.
As Joe Germuska wrote to me recently about the Zen posting
of mine about Lennie [which you also attacked in a curt and
meaningless way],
„I do agree with you that LT is far more
important that the press suggests! He is one of the
great innovators of jazz!ľ
WhatĽs your problem, really?
I apologize to the other members of rmb for my anger, but
Dale and I have been through this before and IĽm a bit
tired of it and donĽt really have the time for it right now.
I donĽt mind disagreement, and rmb is made for controversy,
but DaleĽs hostility in this, and more so in the Zen post, is
really uncalled for and unnecessary.
Who needs it?
============
Financial- The people controlling the scene [see „new payolaľ] donĽt want the money going to anyone but the artists they control; at=
the same time, there is the myth that Tristano's music, and the music of those influenced by him, doesnĽt sell, that people donĽt d=
ig it. Contradictory and ironic, to be sure.
Musical- People who donĽt want someone who is so great and different out there, especially when a large part of the scene is coalesc=
ing around a mythology now that excludes LT. For example, about 8 years ago, Wynton spoke at the H.S. for Music and Art in NYC. When=
the subject came up about LT, he said something like, „DonĽt listen to it, itĽs too advancedľ. A left handed complement, to be sure=
, but the message was, „donĽt listen to itľ! Would he have said that about Stravinsky, Ives, anyone else? Cecil, maybe?
Writers- for the most part, donĽt want anyone to dig LT because theyĽve been putting him down for so long that, if it starts to come=
out on any mass scale how great he was, people will ask them, „Where were you?ľ. In short, they think they are protecting their job=
s.
Racial- It is understandable, from a human point of view, how a group who has been denied so much, would tend to try and jealously g=
uard itĽs ownership of such a wonderful scene; but, realistically, would it be fair if, for example, if people said that, in order =
to be a psychoanalyst, you had to be a Viennese Jew, like Freud? And sure, Wynton is going to include Gerry Mulligan at Lincoln Cent=
er, but primarily as a composer. IĽm talking about jazz improvising. IĽm not trying to heat up the racial scene, [like Peter Watrou=
s might have by calling Joe Lovano „The Great White Hopeľ in that dumb article in the recent New York Times] IĽm trying to cool it o=
ut.
Individuals- I donno, Dale, whatĽs your beef?
Psychological- People have gotten more uptight in some ways, since WWII and many donĽt want something that is not nostalgia, i.e. fu=
sion [really nostalgia in the sense that it is the mixing and sort of diluting of previous styles] and repertory [you already know w=
hat to expect]. It can be emotionally challenging to listen in the moment and not know what is going to happen.
LT + Bird- This ĺfliesĽ in the face of the above in obvious ways.
I wish to add one more thing about the Bird movie. It is something that Wilhelm Reich wrote in the 1930Ľs after seeing a movie about=
Beethoven that apparently was as bad as the Bird movie:
„And yet people smirk at everything, even at BeethovenĽs fate. They are titillated by the misery of great men. They honor them after=
they have died in misery so that they themselves can continue their own paltry lives, so that they can transform the humiliation of=
great individuals into profit. Down with this filth.ľ
Dale Smoak
BTW,
although there may be other copies of that music elsewhere, how do you
really know what the producers of the Bird movie did with the tapes?
Are they storing them?
If so, where and for how long? How careful are they? It is not
as simplistic as „they didnĽt erase the tapesľ. There is more
to this scene, as I have said...
Eh?
Wilhelm Reich once said something to the effect that
that „people donĽt have to be taking their orders from a central
location to be part of a conspiracy; they just are like that!ľ. Whether
it is your kneejerk hostile reactions to my postings,
exclusion from books and the press, or the
consistent exclusion of anyone associated and/or truly
influenced by him from gigs and the
media, the fact remains.
Hmmm, I had never considered the possibility that I might unknowingly be
part of this conspiracy. I'll definitely have to start reading those
ingredient labels more carefully.
Mark W. Smart
In a previous article, rcta...@inch.com (Richard Tabnik) says:
>I refer to the erasure of the original artists that played
>with Charlie Parker; specifically, the tracks with Lennie
>Tristano and Kenny Clarke are unavailable legally in their
>and true original form!
>
I never thought about the legal implications of this, but I had a problem
with it for a different reason. Although removing the rhythm section from
a mixed recording is an interesting trick, it can't be done without
compromising the sound of whatever is left, i.e. Bird's tone. In the movie
he sounded like he was in a fucking garbage can!!!!
As I understand it, they took the recording and eq'ed a lot of the high end
out to get rid of most of the rhythm section sound. In the process, the
saxophone's tone is also drastically altered until it sounds totally anemic.
I think this greatly diminished the impact of the scenes where he's playing
live.
--
Mark Smart
Richard Tabnik
>In article <4jt6fr$2...@sleepy.inch.com> Richard Tabnik <rcta...@inch.com> writes:
>
> although there may be other copies of that music elsewhere, how do you
> really know what the producers of the Bird movie did with the tapes?
> Are they storing them?
> If so, where and for how long? How careful are they? It is not
> as simplistic as „they didnĽt erase the tapesľ. There is more
> to this scene, as I have said...
>
>Eh?
..more meaningless remarks. I discuss your points factually and seriously. Furthermore, the
people who own those tapes now make it impossible for Lennie's estate to ever get paid for
that music, unless they release it. There are no plans, as far as anyone has heard. That is a
real crime.
I was trying to make the point that 'erasure' is not so simple; I actually think you
understood that but dig being a drag. Too bad. This doesn't seem like a sincere
discussion/debate about jazz from your side.
>
> Wilhelm Reich once said something to the effect that
> that „people donĽt have to be taking their orders from a central
> location to be part of a conspiracy; they just are like that!ľ. Whether
> it is your kneejerk hostile reactions to my postings,
> exclusion from books and the press, or the
> consistent exclusion of anyone associated and/or truly
> influenced by him from gigs and the
> media, the fact remains.
>
>Hmmm, I had never considered the possibility that I might unknowingly be
>part of this conspiracy. I'll definitely have to start reading those
>ingredient labels more carefully.
Again you try to substitute attitude for discussion, sarcasm for facts. It's such a waste. I
hope that I have dealt with these topics informatively fo those sincerely interested. It
really is surious why you can't communicate.