G. Benson's solo on Billie's Bounce - Amaj7 over F7
Jose Paulo Pires
In the first chorus, I notice he uses a Amaj7 arp against the F7 in
bar 3, then resolving it chromatically back to Bb Mixolydian in bar 5.
I was wondering why the Amaj7 arp woks so fine over the F7.
He plays the Amaj7 arp with no inversion: A, Db, E and Ab.
Over the F7 that means: 3th (A), 5#(Db), maj7 (E) and #9(Ab)
My only doubt is about the maj7(E).
I mean: I would expect a F#m arpeggio over the F7 to bring
a F7(alt) sound. For example, Benson plays a Fm arpeggio
over the E7 chord in the Stella bridge, and as somebody else
in this group mentioned sometimes ago, in a master class tape
George talked about using the melodic minor scale (and the minor
triad arpeggio) a half step above the root of a dominant chord in strong
resolving situations, as V7 to im7.
But the note E is not in the F# melodic minor, and in that case the
3th mode would be Amaj7(#5).
Thanks for any hint.
Blue Monk
and that's the only explanation I can give you. Actually I can give you
another one, but I like this one best. Oh what the hell, you can look at it
as one of the three available alternate dominant areas. I'll keep it as
simple as possible cause theory has nothing to do with playing. I can't do
either one so take it for what it's worth.
There really are only three different dominant chords. And F7 is the same as
B7. Amaj7 is available on B7, therefore it's available on F7. The other two
dominant seven chords that belong to this group are Ab7 and D7. These four
chords are one in the same. They all share the same diminished chord
(F#dim7, Adim7, Cdim7, Ebdim7), spell it however you'd like. Hopefully by
now you realize that there are only three different diminished chords and
then they repeat. It's the same thing with dominant chords. There really
only three and then they repeat, this is based on diminished theory.
That's all there is to it. I have nothing else to say about this and tell
you now that I am not responsible for any nonsense that this post provokes.
I love it. This is what happens while you await go get your guitar back from
your trusty luthier as he does a little job on it for you.
Best of luck....Monk.
On 8/20/02 10:12 AM, in article 3D624E50...@hp.com, "Jose Paulo Pires"
Unknown
<jpaulo...@hp.com> wrote:
>I was studying yesterday the G. Benson's solo on Billie's Bounce,
>In the first chorus, I notice he uses a Amaj7 arp against the F7 in
>bar 3,
An Amaj7 would be a tritone sub of Ebmaj7 which is commonly used
against an F7.
Rick DelSavio
before (ad nauseum) You will get many responses from the search. Good luck,
Rick
Jose Paulo Pires wrote:
--
Jazz Guitarist/Educator
Check out lessons and original music @
http://www.rickdelsavio.com
Charlie Robinson
> Thanks for any hint.
--
Jazz Guitarist/Educator
Check out lessons and original music @
http://www.rickdelsavio.com >>
--------------------------------------
You could view it as a sideslip. (B-7- E7 for Bb-7-F7). When seen from this
perspective the Amaj.7th. is just a part of the B- Dorian harmonization. This
was a commonly used device.
Charlie Robinson Jazz Guitarist, Composer
You can hear me online at: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/robinsonchazz
or: <A HREF="http://rmmgj.iuma.com">http://rmmgj.iuma.com</A>
Jose Paulo Pires
It seems to me that all subjects related to jazz guitar have already been
discussed here before. :-)
I will go to google and search for this topic to read more about it.
JP
Jose Paulo Pires
> All notes are available in over a dominant chord. I know the solo you mean,
> and that's the only explanation I can give you. Actually I can give you
> another one, but I like this one best. Oh what the hell, you can look at it
> as one of the three available alternate dominant areas. I'll keep it as
> simple as possible cause theory has nothing to do with playing. I can't do
> either one so take it for what it's worth.
>
> There really are only three different dominant chords. And F7 is the same as
> B7. Amaj7 is available on B7, therefore it's available on F7. The other two
> dominant seven chords that belong to this group are Ab7 and D7. These four
> chords are one in the same. They all share the same diminished chord
> (F#dim7, Adim7, Cdim7, Ebdim7), spell it however you'd like.
Sure ! Thanks for the explanation. Nice post.
JP
Dan Adler
> I was studying yesterday the G. Benson's solo on Billie's Bounce,
> In the first chorus, I notice he uses a Amaj7 arp against the F7 in
Been there, discussed that:
Jack A. Zucker
the tritone sub (B7) which is why it works so well over F7 going to
Bb. Amaj7 is a diatonic extension of B7. See the discussion of
dodecaphonics on my website:
http://www.jackzucker.com/lessons/dodecaphonics.htm
Jaz
Tim Berens
<jpaulo...@hp.com> wrote:
>I was studying yesterday the G. Benson's solo on Billie's Bounce,
>In the first chorus, I notice he uses a Amaj7 arp against the F7 in
>bar 3, then resolving it chromatically back to Bb Mixolydian in bar 5.
>I was wondering why the Amaj7 arp woks so fine over the F7.
How about something as simple as "because it sounds good."
I often wonder if we are making improvisation much more difficult than
it has to be by diving so deeply into theory to explain things.
I'm not an anti-theory nut; I have a degree in classical guitar and
understand it all thoroughly and apply it. But, it seems to me that a
little theory goes a long way, and a lot of theory just goes in a big,
confusing circle.
Assuming that your interest is not in writing a treatise on music
theory, but just to be a good improviser, is it really necessary to
work out a detailed theoretical explanation formula for why an Amaj7
sounds good over an F7 chord?
Isn't it enough to know that it does sound good and you can use it in
your own improvisation?
Tim
http://timberens.com
A Website for Guitarists
Learn something...Have some fun
Jurupari
>theory, but just to be a good improviser, is it really necessary to
>work out a detailed theoretical explanation formula for why an Amaj7
>sounds good over an F7 chord?
>
Maybe not, but if there's more than one application for an F7, as there
obviously is, the choice of Amaj7, or anything else as a sub may be colored by
that.
I believe in as little theory as is possible, but I don't want vague or poorly
understood harmonic areas in my music as a result - I have enough problems as
is is.
Also, I want to take full advantage of any 'commutative' or 'distributive'
properties of chords, so I can have a more universal understanding of a
situation like putting a major seventh in a dominant chord - it may not always
be the hippest thing to do, and there may be guidelines I can figure out and
refer to as to when and when not.
Clif Kuplen
Robby
Benson lead into & out of the Amaj7. I mean specifically, what notes on what
chords? Also, what recording is it from?
"Jose Paulo Pires" <jpaulo...@hp.com> wrote in message
news:3D624E50...@hp.com...
Bob Agnew
explain substitution subgroups. Perhaps, Sylow subgorups!
Just kidding ;-))
"Jurupari" <juru...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020820215458...@mb-fe.aol.com...
Jack A. Zucker
the various responses to this question which is so obviously a simple
tritone sub...
Jaz
Mark Kleinhaut
Ahhh, never underestimate the mind's capacity to over analyze...
--------------------Mark Kleinhaut
markkl...@hotmail.com
Info and soundclips about:
"Chasing Tales":
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Chasing%20Tales.html
"Amphora":
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Amphora.html
"Secrets of Three": http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/SO3.html
John Pin
Jose,
I know this solo really well. Transcribed a lot Benson, and found this
transcription in
a folder...i reckon i did it 15 years ago...I went through a "I have to
know all of Benson" phase...funny..still in that phase.
The lick you mean...and i would call it a lick cause its a definte device of
Bensons,
and it fits so neatly overthe move to the Bb7.
In my humble opinion, ...but the Amaj7 is a short sweep into target note
which is Gsharp...souns to me like he did this all in Vth position. The
focus of the line really is the descending notes G#, G, F# F to the
resolution of Eb where he slides into the D which happens on the downbeat of
the Bb7 chord. He then plays down a gmi7 arp/Bbpnt..or near enough. So its
really a targetting idea. . The Amaj7 notes are a nice harmonic breath and
im sure its intentional by Benson...but, i think that sweep is being
analysed too much. The important bit is what happens right after it.
Note also that the chromatic lines are on the off beats..accentuates the
phrase and your cant help but follow the path of the notes to their
resolution on the Bb.
Great solo this. Thanks for reminding me of it.
John
John
Jose Paulo Pires
> (...)
> Assuming that your interest is not in writing a treatise on music
> theory, but just to be a good improviser, is it really necessary to
> work out a detailed theoretical explanation formula for why an Amaj7
> sounds good over an F7 chord?
Yes.
> Isn't it enough to know that it does sound good and you can use it in
> your own improvisation?
No. I personally like to understand the theory behind.
As somebody else mentioned here before, George Benson uses a lot of
substitutions in his solos, and that seems the case here too,
since the Amaj7 is really an F#m9 inversion (the F#m9 chord is
the ii chord of the tritone sub B7, which is why it works so well over
F7 going to Bb).
IMO, if you understand the theory behind, it makes easier to you
apply the idea in other contexts, and change the line, creating your
own stuff.
JP
Tom Jaffe
it would work, as long as you chromatically descend to a chord tone of the
next chord change. I do not recommend over-theorizing a solo played by a
self-taught, intuitive, non-theory type of player. You may lose a lot of
sleep.
"John Pin" <jp...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3d639cfb$0$29911$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Jack A. Zucker
is the ii chord of the V (B7) which is a simple tritone sub on the F7.
Benson uses this device all the time and probably picked it up from
Wes who probably picked it up from one of the bebop cats.
Jaz
Jack A. Zucker
> Good point. You could probably use that as a sweep anywhere on any chord and
> it would work, as long as you chromatically descend to a chord tone of the
> next chord change. I do not recommend over-theorizing a solo played by a
> self-taught, intuitive, non-theory type of player. You may lose a lot of
> sleep.
What a silly statement.
What does Benson being self-taught have to do with analyzing his
playing? Charlie Parker was also self-taught as was Wes. Should we not
analyze their playing?
The fact is, whether Benson was taught by the Gods, other jazz
musicians or learned through crystals and reiki, he has a theory
concept. If you cannot follow that fine, but giving blanket advice to
beginner/intermediate players advocating not over-theorizing something
which is a basic concept of chord substitution is a disservice to
younger players and is a good example why folks should seek out a good
teacher and not just believe everything they see and hear on usenet.
Jaz
Paul Sanwald
wrote:
>younger players and is a good example why folks should seek out a good
>teacher and not just believe everything they see and hear on usenet.
>
hang on, I'm confused. you don't believe everything you read on
usenet?
--paul
Tom Jaffe
lack of sense of humor and the inability to detect a joking response. Fact
is, when musicians IMPROVISE, and do not simply apply predetermined chord
scales to changes, they may periodically play something that was free and
based on simply moving from one place to another on the fretboard. I agree
that the Ab maj7 arpeggio was based on the B7 sub, and the last time this
thread came up I was the first one to present that analysis. My analysis was
responded to by Jimmy Bruno, who agreed that it was a good analysis. Search
Usenet to find the original thread. However, trying to analyze every phrase
or sound an improviser makes, especially a self-taught musician, may not
make sense in accepted theory. In Wes' solo on If You Could See Me Now, he
hits a high 'A' on the Ab maj7 chord. You can analyze that all you want, but
it was probably inadvertent, or simply a delayed chromatic move. It would
not fit any chord scale that Wes may have been thinking of. Hence my 'losing
sleep' joke. BTW, don't they dispense Prozac in Cleveland? Get a
personality, dude. You need to spend more time developing your interpersonal
skills and less time responding in a 'know-it-all' way to every damn
posting. You take the fun out of jazz guitar. This is supposed to be
enjoyable. It is not a religion. Get happy, and you may begin to perceive
humor.
"Jack A. Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote in message
news:2f33c43f.02082...@posting.google.com...
thomas
> I'm sure this will get me flamed but I have to say that I'm alarmed at
> the various responses to this question which is so obviously a simple
> tritone sub...
The lick in question a ubiquitous bebop cliche played
constantly by Bird and everyone since. But it is pretty
cool when you discover it yourself for the first time.
I remember when I found it for the first time, in the
first jazz solo I ever transcribed, something by Grant
Green but I can't recall which one. That was a eureka
moment.
John Pin
the tritone sub,
BUT, the lick, is all about what follows after this.
"thomas" <tomb...@jhu.edu> wrote in message
news:7d424f23.02082...@posting.google.com...
Henry Moon
my offering in the plate now on this paticular tritone approach. I'm
more of a visual player. So I like the fact that I can play a major
triad one half step below the target dominent and let my ear resolve
it. Neat melodies have come from it that way for me. Easy to see, easy
to grab. And it sounds good.
Another thing of Bensons, from my way of seeing it, is his frequent
approach from a m7b5 to a dom...
this time arppegiating a m7th triad one step below the target dom. and
'ear' resolving it. Usually descending arps, BTW.
He did this on Stella as I recall.
Henry
Jack A. Zucker
> that the Ab maj7 arpeggio was based on the B7 sub, and the last time this
Tom,
It was an Amaj7, (F#m9) not Abmaj7.
Yes, jazz is supposed to be fun but mis-information is not the key to having fun.
Jaz
Jack A. Zucker
say about you? Other than this posting, have I ever attacked your
character? You are amazing. Talk about prozak...You need to be put on
a paxil drip...
I've transcribed a ton of Benson and despite your repeated attempts at
explaining away any of his vocabulary by depicting him as an "ear" or
self-taught musician, he quite obviously is very well schooled in the
half-whole diminished concept as well as super locrian (melodic minor
scale a 1/2 step up from the dominant chord) What the original poster
was asking about was simply a variation of the super-locrian with a
natural instead of maj 7, hence the Fm9 tonality. (Super Locrian would
yield a min9 maj7 chord) Since Benson uses this device in just about
every solo, I objected to your characterization of him as a
self-taught player and your assertion that *YOU* do not recommend
over-theorizing a solo played by a self-taught, intuitive, non-theory
type of player.
What is the definition of that, anyway? I taught myself theory, how to
play jazz, etc. However, I later attended the University of Miami.
Does that make me a schooled player? Benson taught himself theory and
how to read. Is he really a self-taught, intuitive, non-theory player?
In interviews, he talks about chord substitutions that he gleaned from
copying Wes, Bird and others. Was Bird a self taught player?
What are *YOUR* qualifications that have you recommend folks to not
over analyize a Benson solo (whatever that means) but then to
recommend that I be on prozak?
And while I'm at it, did it ever occur to you that I don't find the
humor in your postings because you are not funny?
Sorry to burden the group with this kind of BS but in the past I've
asked tom to take his burdens with me offline but he does not reply.
Jaz
Bob Russell
at j...@jackzucker.com wrote on 8/22/02 1:40 PM:
> What is the definition of that, anyway? I taught myself theory, how to
> play jazz, etc. However, I later attended the University of Miami.
> Does that make me a schooled player? Benson taught himself theory and
> how to read. Is he really a self-taught, intuitive, non-theory player?
> In interviews, he talks about chord substitutions that he gleaned from
> copying Wes, Bird and others. Was Bird a self taught player?
It doesn't matter where anybody goes to school or if they even go to school
at all - every jazz player is ultimately "self-taught", because we have to
put everything together for ourselves in the end. We have to figure out how
to express ourselves in music on our own terms. Schools can't do that for
us.
Conversely, if a person learns to play jazz well, then that person is
"schooled", whether they went to school or not. You just can't learn to play
this music without taking on some information somehow. Bird had help from
other musicians such as Efferge Ware; Wes had his brothers and other players
in Indianapolis. Neither guy could have written a Master's thesis on
diminished harmony; they just played a lot of the musical examples that guys
use when they write their theses! The proof of the pudding in music is BEING
ABLE TO PLAY IT, not being able to talk about it.
-- Bob Russell
http://www.bobrussellguitar.com
Jurupari
post a silly statement - not too many people are going to stand for that
regardless of the source. Would you?
Incidentally your reason, far as I could tell for your calling his statement
silly was that he was misleading 'beginning and intermediate' players about a
simple tritone substitution.
I don't see a tritone sub that distorts the tritone, viz. making Eb and A move
to E and A in the Amaj 7 chord as being a 'simple to intermediate' concept.
There's at least one step there beyond a plain tritone sub, and I have a lot
of trouble just making THAT sink in to my intermediate and beginning students.
Hell, your second post contained more than a paragraph of theory in addition to
that, and I doubt that any student I ever had would grasp that at all when they
were beginning or intermediate.
I'm not criticizing the veracity, it was all true, but not on point for a
beginner to absorb, hence not a good reason to call Tom's post silly.
You might ask youself how many beginning or intermediate improvisors are
comfortable placing major sevenths in dominant chords.
On the other hand, I know that I learned a LOT of devices off of records and
other places that I knew how to use without fully understanding why. That came
later - I don't think you have to know everything before you start - I try to
get people who study with me to using the concepts I teach them, and let the
comprehension of 'why' be assimilated prn.
In defense of Tom's position, when we were much younger, Chip Crawford and I
agonized over one chorus of Fortune Smiles as done by Gary Burton and Keith
Jarrett. We couldn't nail down the structure or their chordal thinking - it
seemed to relate to the changes but we didn't know HOW, and yes, I lost sleep
over it.
Later, Chip was playing with Gary and mentioned the solo and asked him what the
deal was with that chorus. His answer was that they weren't thinking
harmonically at all, just blowin and letting what came out come out.
If you're Gary Burton or George Benson, I don't see much wrong with that, or
talking about it.
I have tried to say this as inoffensively as possible, and I sat and looked at
this about half an hour before sending it on, but I am sending it and I hope
its received in the spirit intended.
Clif Kuplen
Jack A. Zucker
news:B98A9E9D.C15F%
> It doesn't matter where anybody goes to school or if they even go to
school
> at all - every jazz player is ultimately "self-taught", because we have to
> put everything together for ourselves in the end. We have to figure out
how
> to express ourselves in music on our own terms. Schools can't do that for
> us.
Exactly. It doesn't matter if your Auntie Emm taught you to play or whether
you studied with Dave Liebman. I see nothing wrong with analyzing an F#m9
chord over an F7 going to Bb.
Dubious recommendations about not bothering with analyzing something because
of a personal prejudice over whether someone is an ear player or not is
ludicrous.
Hell, I've analyzed Hendrix solos before and it never hurt me!
In some peoples' world, players are divided up into intuitive self taught
musicians and then theory jocks. I guess they would consider Benson the
intuitive sort and Diorio the theory jock. According to that logic, once
I've properly categorized a player I can then decide whether to analyze
their solos or not?!?
Do I have that right?
Jaz
Tom Jaffe
instruction video. He would be against analyzing everything, and is very
much into developing the right side of the brain (the side that does not
need names, numbers, etc). He would disagree wholeheartedly with your
approach, as he believes in intuition. Why don't you email him and belittle
everything he says like you do with so many of this newsgroups members.
"Jack A. Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote in message
news:Zhc99.17900$WJ3.3...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Thom_j.
is cooking all the time! No BS :) thom_j.
"Tom Jaffe" <tja...@eesjobs.com> wrote in message
news:ak3jq8$9nl$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Tom Jaffe
"Thom_j." <thom_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Tke99.129825$m91.5...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Thom_j.
"Tom Jaffe" <tja...@eesjobs.com> wrote in message
news:ak3sii$786$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Tom Jaffe
"Thom_j." <thom_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4Pe99.23088$Aw4.9...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Tom Lippincott
>you studied with Dave Liebman.
hmm....I had a dream once that I asked Dave Liebman if he could teach me how to
play jazz, and he said "my son, it's been with you all along; just click your
heels together three times and say 'there's no place like home." and Jack, YOU
were there, and Bob, so were YOU.
Tom Lippincott
Guitarist, Composer, Teacher
audio samples, articles, CD's at:
http://www.tomlippincott.com
Bob Russell
tomli...@aol.comnospam wrote on 8/23/02 3:25 AM:
Stop, Tom; you're scaring me...
Thom_j.
"Tom Lippincott" <tomli...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20020823032528...@mb-cn.aol.com...
> >Exactly. It doesn't matter if your Auntie Emm taught you to play or
whether
> >you studied with Dave Liebman.
>
> hmm....I had a dream once that I asked Dave Liebman if he could teach me
how to
> play jazz, and he said "my son, it's been with you all along; just click
your
> heels together three times and say 'there's no place like home." and
Jack, YOU
> were there, and Bob, so were YOU.
Which was the tin-man, the cowardly lion and the scare-crow? huh? :)
Jack A. Zucker
> Diorio is anti-theory. Check out his excellent Creative Jazz Guitar
> instruction video. He would be against analyzing everything, and is very
> much into developing the right side of the brain (the side that does not
> need names, numbers, etc). He would disagree wholeheartedly with your
> approach, as he believes in intuition. Why don't you email him and belittle
> everything he says like you do with so many of this newsgroups members.
In terms of our exchanges, how am I any more arrogant than you? I've
emailed you privately asking to take this offline and you ignore my
emails. You've made some pretty strong statements yourself but you
can't seem to see that.
Jack A. Zucker
Do you have any playing online? I'd be curious to see how your
recommended approach translates into musical ideas. I'm not saying
this as a flame. I'm just curious.
Jaz
Sideways Jaye
Why don't you email him and belittle
> everything he says like you do with so many of this newsgroups members.
Not that Jack needs me to defend him, Tom, but that's a bit over the
top. Jack called me out for making a "blanket" statement in a thread,
but it was warranted. And, he's been particularly helpful and kind to
me. It only makes it more real that we don't always agree with each
other. You can have a heated discussion about this thread topic
without getting personal. He called your statement silly, not you.
This is a great group, let's not get nasty.
Jurupari
Joey Goldstein
Tom Jaffe wrote:
>
> I do not recommend over-theorizing a solo played by a
> self-taught, intuitive, non-theory type of player. You may lose a lot of
> sleep.
Well the thing about studying something that someone else did on a
recording is that YOU are trying to understand it for YOUR own purposes,
usually theft. It doesn't really matter one whit if the guy who played
it understood it, although usually he did. But his understanding might
be framed in completely different terminology and in different concepts
from your own.
--
Joey Goldstein
Guitarist/Jazz Recording Artist/Teacher
Home Page: http://www.joeygoldstein.com
Email: <joegold AT sympatico DOT ca>
thomas
> Diorio is anti-theory. Check out his excellent Creative Jazz Guitar
> instruction video. He would be against analyzing everything, and is very
> much into developing the right side of the brain (the side that does not
> need names, numbers, etc). He would disagree wholeheartedly with your
> approach, as he believes in intuition.
Joe may be pro-intuition, but he is not exactly anti-theory. He can and
does explain music in theoretical terms. He knows exactly what he is
doing, and can tell you if he feels like it. He just prefers
to propagate a New Age haze most of the time. Different strokes, etc.
Jack A. Zucker
> play jazz, and he said "my son, it's been with you all along; just click your
> heels together three times and say 'there's no place like home." and Jack, YOU
> were there, and Bob, so were YOU.
My problem was that once I got there, I couldn't figure out how to get back!
Thom_j.
Joey Goldstein
"Jack A. Zucker" wrote:
>
> "Tom Jaffe" <tja...@eesjobs.com> wrote in message news:<ak09ou$rgk$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> > Good point. You could probably use that as a sweep anywhere on any chord and
> > it would work, as long as you chromatically descend to a chord tone of the
> > next chord change. I do not recommend over-theorizing a solo played by a
> > self-taught, intuitive, non-theory type of player. You may lose a lot of
> > sleep.
>
> What a silly statement.
>
> What does Benson being self-taught have to do with analyzing his
> playing? Charlie Parker was also self-taught as was Wes. Should we not
> analyze their playing?
>
> The fact is, whether Benson was taught by the Gods, other jazz
> musicians or learned through crystals and reiki, he has a theory
> concept. If you cannot follow that fine, but giving blanket advice to
> beginner/intermediate players advocating not over-theorizing something
> which is a basic concept of chord substitution is a disservice to
> younger players and is a good example why folks should seek out a good
> teacher and not just believe everything they see and hear on usenet.
>
> Jaz
I see nothing as arrogant and as inflammatory in Jack's comments as his
detractors would have us believe. The next post by Tom gets totally out
of hand and is a personal attack on Jack rather than a discussion of
Jack's ideas.
Then Dick gets into it on Tom's side and gets burned. So Dick's now
licking his wounds. Big deal. There have been worse exhanges in this
group over the years (not involving Dick of course) and Dick didn't quit
then. Personally, I don't think he's going to quit the group now either.
Maybe for a day or two. I think he's probably just as addicted as the
rest of us. I think he's just fishing for sympathy right now. He keeps
posting about how he's going to stop posting. <g>
Look people, there are no real heavy-weight genius guitar players out
here in this group that I know of, unless they're posting here
anonymously. The heaviest guy I've seen post here is Stanley Jordan.
Jimmy Bruno's a real good guitar player and all but he's certainly no
genius of the jazz guitar. Outside of those two guys we're all weenie
wannabees as far as I can tell. Some of us just have a little bit more
experience than some of the others.
Jack is real good player. He's no Pat Metheny and he knows it. He's
entitled to be a little uppity in his comments, as far as I'm concerned,
because I know he's done the work.
But I have never seen him get into ugly personal attacks in this public
forum in the way that Tom and Dick have in this thread. Evidently he may
have gotten somewhat nasty in some private emails but evidently only
after he was himself emailed privately first. Dick's the one who posted
all the personal private email spew here for us all to see, or so it
looks to me. If Dick is so bruised by Jack's rebuttal as to have to
leave the group then so be it. Ta ta. Come back when you can handle it.
Your contributions are valued by all but I think we'll survive. I think
you're making the wrong decision but it's your decision. You say that
you and Jack have both accepted each other's apologies, so what's the problem?
And while I would not use the word "silly" to characterize Tom's advice
above, which seems to me to be given from a sort of overall
"anti-theory" position, I do think it is bad advice, maybe even
dangerous advice depending on how it is taken. The only saving grace in
Tom's sentence is the word "over". He says to not "over-theorize"
Benson's solo. Well, over-doing anything is usually a bad idea, IMO. But
to advise a novice to intentionally not try to understand (i.e. theorize
about) a line that he really likes and wants to incorporate into his own
playing, no matter how it was conceived in the mind of the player who
played it, is just, well, bad advice, in my opinion.
Flame suit on.
Bob Russell
> Look people, there are no real heavy-weight genius guitar players out
> here in this group that I know of, unless they're posting here
> anonymously. The heaviest guy I've seen post here is Stanley Jordan.
> Jimmy Bruno's a real good guitar player and all but he's certainly no
> genius of the jazz guitar. Outside of those two guys we're all weenie
> wannabees as far as I can tell.
>
Thanks for your unflinching, candid and totally unasked for appraisal of the talents of our
posters.
Later, dudes.
- Bob Russell
Tom Walls
> I see nothing as arrogant and as inflammatory in Jack's comments as his
> detractors would have us believe. The next post by Tom gets totally out
> of hand and is a personal attack on Jack rather than a discussion of
> Jack's ideas.
snip
>
> Flame suit on.
>
>
I wonder if I'm the only guy here who feels "left out" because I didn't
see the most vituperative posts. I suppose I could go to deja news --
naw! -- I'm sick, but I'm not *that* sick.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
Joey Goldstein
especially when it comes down to dissing someone else's in the group's
playing. Sorry if my "appraisal" seems like flame bait but that's the
way I see it.
--
Jay Carlson
> here in this group that I know of, unless they're posting here
> anonymously. The heaviest guy I've seen post here is Stanley Jordan.
surely you're joking? I mean, I'm sure he's a heck of a guy, I'd be happy
to have him over to dinner, but a heavy? Musically speaking?
uh-oh,
Jay
http://artists2.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Jay_Carlson/
Jay Carlson
"Tom Walls" <tw...@REMOVEcornell.edu> wrote in message
news:MPG.17d4329d2...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
Tom,
I don't understand, doesn't your mail program have a news reader? Can't
everyone see all posts? Or does your ISP not have a news server?
Jay
http://artists2.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Jay_Carlson/
Tom Walls
number of days. I only read the newsgroup Mon-Fri and on Mondays there
are often WAY MORE threads than I can read(because I'm at work) and so I
get behind and sometimes posts start disappearing. I'm sure this is
because of the way I've set up the newsreader, but I haven't thought up a
more advantageous configuration. Mostly because I haven't even tried.
It's my understanding, however, that everyone's ISP and newsreaders have
their own idiosyncrasies, burps, and farts, so I never take it for
granted that everyone gets the same information.
Adam Bravo
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3D6A565C...@nowhere.net...
I don't know that I would be considered a "Jack detractor;" I mean, apart
from the fact that he seems to have vicious mood swings on occasion, he
seems like a sincere and honest enough guy (as is Dick, and I'm assuming Tom
Jaffe, though I've never read many of his posts).
But that post was quite inflammatory, whether it was on purpose or not. He
gets started by calling Tom's statement "silly." Obviously Tom believed what
he said, and I would expect that idea to garner a little bit more respect.
It's not as if it's likely to totally ruin anybody's life or chops.
Then the phrase, "If you cannot follow that...." That totally implies
"you're not capable of following what I said." Then he adds insult to injury
by saying what Tom *can't follow* is an elementary concept.
Then he caps it off by saying that Tom is doing younger players a
disservice, and is an example of lack of knowledgability on Usenet. I don't
think that post was maliciously intended, but it certainly needed to be
reread or something.
As to my view on the actual topic, it's somewhere between the extremes.
Study anybody's lines you like, but just know that they're not aiming to
follow the lines of logic, and at some point the theory gets so complex it's
just easier to use your ears.
Joey Goldstein
Jay Carlson wrote:
>
> > Look people, there are no real heavy-weight genius guitar players out
> > here in this group that I know of, unless they're posting here
> > anonymously. The heaviest guy I've seen post here is Stanley Jordan.
>
> surely you're joking? I mean, I'm sure he's a heck of a guy, I'd be happy
> to have him over to dinner, but a heavy? Musically speaking?
Yeah. He invented a whole new way of playing the jazz on the guitar and
he's a virtuoso at it. That's pretty freakin' heavy if you ask me. I'm
not a big fan of the music he makes but he's a genius no doubt about it.
I'm not a big fan of Bartok either btw and he's pretty heavy too.
> uh-oh,
> Jay
> http://artists2.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Jay_Carlson/
Joey Goldstein
All I can say to that is that there is a history on this group of folks
being openly antagonistic to the idea of theory and to the ideas of
people who actually understand some theory such as Jack and myself. And
as far as I'm concerned this antagonism IS silly at best and dangerous
at worst. I got the feeling that Jack was not just responding to Tom per
se but to the entire host of anti-theory people out there who keep
trying to bring this totally untenable position into discussions in this
forum. I could be wrong though. There may be some history of Tom bashing
theory in past posts or of bashing Jack's positions for all I know. I
have not really been all that aware of what Tom has said here in the
past myself.
The point being that you can't take the words exchanged in this
particular thread in isolation outside of the context of other
discusssions here and between these individuals.
Nazodesu
<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> The point being that you can't take the words exchanged in this
> particular thread in isolation outside of the context of other
> discusssions here and between these individuals.
Quite true. We all have topics and players that are significant to us
We also have people who tend to knock over all the furniture just
sitting down. They're not predatory, just ham-handed and
inconsiderate. On the other hand I sometimes weary of those people who
back-pedal for two paragraphs in order to avoid hurting feelings when
they say something innocuous.
But it's true that the activity between participants here accrues. A
snarl from you long ago continued to piss me off so it was easier just
to killfile you. On the other hand I hadn't taken as made pokes in the
snoot from you as I had from Zucker--in fact I hadn't had any! Thus I
acclimated to Zucker's brusque tone and his tone rarely offends.
I think of Dick as a very sincere, honest, and sensitive guy. He says
his wife told him if he couldn't take the heat to stay out of the
kitchen. That's just what my wife said many long month's ago after a
dogfight with others. If I take an ass-kicking I feel bad, if I
"succeed" by doling one out--I feel bad too. There's no winning. In the
end I'm forced to speak out over, I don't know what; racism, fascism,
agitprop and so forth, but beyond that there is no "discussion" of
these. And so I stop immediately.
Having entered the magical fourth paragraph screen I asssume I'm
talking to myself and so will conclude.
a wandering frank
"Tom Walls" <tw...@REMOVEcornell.edu> wrote in message
> In article <umkqnm3...@corp.supernews.com>, j...@viaccess.net says...
> > "Tom Walls" <tw...@REMOVEcornell.edu> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.17d4329d2...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
didn't
> > > see the most vituperative posts. I suppose I could go to deja news --
> > > naw! -- I'm sick, but I'm not *that* sick.
> My newsreader deletes posts from individual threads after a certain
> number of days. I only read the newsgroup Mon-Fri and on Mondays there
> are often WAY MORE threads than I can read(because I'm at work) and so I
> get behind and sometimes posts start disappearing.
This (too many threads, newsreader deleting posts, although recently, it
hasn't been deleting anything...) is exactly why I for one feel left out,
only to step in the middle of it by reading another thread with or without
the benefit of context. Then, after watching a bunch of players I look up
to, regardless of personalities, hack into each other in yet another Usenet
flamewar with such energy they could have spent either in a more courteous
exchange of ideas, or just playing guitar, *I* feel sick for having been a
passive party to it. Again.
In the effort to defend against real or imagined and exponentially
accumulating slights, the participants aren't doing their reputations much
good from the perspective of those of us who would like to learn from each
of you. FWIW.
Frank
Jay Carlson
>
>
> Jay Carlson wrote:
> >
> > > Look people, there are no real heavy-weight genius guitar players out
> > > here in this group that I know of, unless they're posting here
> > > anonymously. The heaviest guy I've seen post here is Stanley Jordan.
> >
> > surely you're joking? I mean, I'm sure he's a heck of a guy, I'd be
happy
> > to have him over to dinner, but a heavy? Musically speaking?
>
> Yeah. He invented a whole new way of playing the jazz on the guitar and
> he's a virtuoso at it. That's pretty freakin' heavy if you ask me. I'm
> not a big fan of the music he makes but he's a genius no doubt about it.
> I'm not a big fan of Bartok either btw and he's pretty heavy too.
I'm not talking like/dislike, just heavy :)
I looked back at what you originally said, "heavy-weight genius guitar
players". And I guess I can't take too strong of a stance against it, in
regards to Mr. Jordan. I was as amazed as anyone when I first heard that
first album back in the early 80s. Amazed at his technique. He's an
innovator in the realm of technique, that's great. I hope he is
immortalized for it, it may lead to something else, who knows. Even back
then though, he struck me as a novelty, - just never thought of him as a
"heavy" or "genius". It's interesting how it all came about, and how
technological innovations alter the game, the possibilities, and people
adapt and create beauty to fill in the new parameters. First amplifiers let
us play softer and still be heard. Amps have changed the way luthiers make
archtops, from midrangey to a more balanced instrument. Amps also let
players lower the action, but there's a bit of a sacrifice in dynamic range
when you lower the action too much. And in the quest for all that sustain
and easy hammer/pulloff attack, the dynamic range suffers. I don't like
that as a listener. dynamic range is one of the most fundamental and
essential tools of the comoposer/ player. To me, as an instrument, the
'touch-guitar' has gone too far, and is missing too much to be considered an
instrument capable of communicating the depth and breadth of emotion that
most other musical instruments can get accross. Maybe it has started the
ball rolling toward some new instrument, or pointed other players to new
possibilities on their own instruments, that's be great. Technique is
important, innovative technique is very cool, it opens new doors etc. But
I'm still more moved by the heavy genius of a Neil Young Electric guitar
solo.
I agree- Bartok was a heavy. and I like him too.
Jay
http://artists2.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Jay_Carlson/
Joey Goldstein
Jay Carlson wrote:
>
> But
> I'm still more moved by the heavy genius of a Neil Young Electric guitar
> solo.
Well you and I are evidently looking for very different things in music then.
Mike Healy
Jay Carlson <j...@viaccess.net> wrote:
>Tom,
>I don't understand, doesn't your mail program have a news reader? Can't
>everyone see all posts? Or does your ISP not have a news server?
>
My news feed drops posts on busy groups. This group has become a lot
busier lately.
Mike Healy
Jay Carlson
>
>
> Jay Carlson wrote:
> >
> > But
> > I'm still more moved by the heavy genius of a Neil Young Electric guitar
> > solo.
>
> Well you and I are evidently looking for very different things in music
then.
>
> --
> Joey Goldstein
heheh, maybe so,
or maybe I went a little too far out a limb,
maybe a little of both,
Jay
http://artists2.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Jay_Carlson/
Tom Lippincott
>> > I'm still more moved by the heavy genius of a Neil Young Electric guitar
>> > solo.
>>
>> Well you and I are evidently looking for very different things in music
>then.
>>
>> --
>> Joey Goldstein
>
>heheh, maybe so,
>or maybe I went a little too far out a limb,
>maybe a little of both,
>
>Jay
>http://artists2.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Jay_Carlson/
stick to your guns, Jay; I love Neil Young's guitar playing too, btw.
Stanley Jordan
> I was as amazed as anyone when I first heard that
> first album back in the early 80s. Amazed at his technique. He's an
> innovator in the realm of technique, that's great. I hope he is
> immortalized for it, it may lead to something else, who knows. Even back
> then though, he struck me as a novelty, - just never thought of him as a
> "heavy"
Jay,
What do you mean by "heavy?" Are you talking about harmonic or
rhythmic complexity? Speed? Originality? What musical attributes are
you referring to?
And more importantly, are you assuming that my 1985 album Magic Touch
reveals the extent and limits of my musical knowledge or creativity?
That kind of assumption is rarely questioned, but I think it should
be. I think we have put too much faith in the recording process and
the record industry. Recording is great, don't get more wrong, but
LIVE MUSIC IS IT, BABY!
I released Magic Touch 17 years ago and even then, it was never
intended to show off everything I could do. It was more like a healing
process.
You see, in the late 70s and early 80s, before I started making
records, my background had been more in progressive and avant guard
jazz, "modern classical" and serious computer music. Around 1980 I did
a live show with the late Arthur Rhames that was recorded but not
released. I think it blows Magic Touch away in terms of harmonic
complexity, yet it was recorded 5 years earlier. I'd like to see that
recording get released someday.
Breaking conventions and rules felt so free in those days. But then it
became just another trap to get caught up in. It's that "Modern"
belief that music has to be complex and dissonant or must somehow
seriously push the envelope to be good. I had taken speed, complexity
and originality so far that my life and music had lost balance.
I needed to rediscover the beauty of the simple, and the power of
focus. I had carved out such a unique musical niche that I felt
alienated from my neighbors, forgetting that Spirit manifests in
community as well as in solitude. I decided to keep my originality but
make it more subtle. Sometimes you have to go beyond what you know in
order to grow. I needed to make this change both as a developing
musician and as a Spiritual person cultivating a new attitude. Getting
back to body energy and heart energy. Dis-identifying with Mind so
that it can be more easily transcended by Spirit. Many of my musical
heroes were cheering me on in this move, including my jazz teacher
Elroy Jones and certain composers with whom I studied at Princeton.
This change, starting in the early 80s, also coincided with my entry
into the record business. So in addition to healing my complexity
obsession it also helped my record sales because simpler music usually
sells more. This is an example of Aesthetics and Commercialism working
harmoniously together.
So Magic Touch, even at the time I put it out, didn't show everything
I was capable of doing harmonically or technically, nor was it
intended to. The emphasis was more on melody and feeling.
The records I put out in the 80s--Touch Sensitive (1982), Magic Touch
(1985), Standards Volume 1 (1986) and Flying Home (1988)--mostly
reflected this more romantic and more visceral development of the
music. The Flying Home guitars had great dynamics, but in the final
production all the dynamics got squashed with compression. Someday I'd
like to remix that album to my own taste and put it out again!
Then in the early 90s I started to bring back some of the more "heavy"
elements to a degree with Cornucopia (1990). (Note: Blue Note may have
taken this one out of print.) The title track is a 22-minute free
improvisation with no editing. It definitely goes into some heavier
harmonic areas and some creative explorations. The electronic piece
"Asteroids" goes into some rather unusual harmonies as well. I felt I
had found a good balance because Cornucopia also had things like
"What's Going On," which was nominated for a Grammy as "Best Pop
Instrumental."
But then the music started leading me into some areas that were less
and less compatible with the mainstream music industry, so I had to
get out of the limelight to pursue those further developments. I did
one album for Arista, but then that was pretty much it. Anything that
has come out since then has been reissues or stuff that Blue Note had
in the can.
Now for the last decade or so I have lived a quiet hermetic lifestyle
with little or no contact with the recording industry, so if you want
to hear me play, YOU GOTTA COME TO THE GIG, G! I like that, because I
think people put too much stock in recordings. Recordings have come to
be more important than live shows, which to me is ass backwards.
But even if you do come to one of my gigs, don't expect me to show
everything I can do. I like to go where the music leads, which may
mean focusing on particular things and leaving other things alone. So
I hope you can just relax and enjoy the music.
Cheers,
Stanley Jordan
www.stanleyjordan.com
Charlie Robinson
elements to a degree with Cornucopia (1990). (Note: Blue Note may have
taken this one out of print.) The title track is a 22-minute free
improvisation with no editing. It definitely goes into some heavier
harmonic areas and some creative explorations. The electronic piece
"Asteroids" goes into some rather unusual
harmonies as well. I felt I
had found a good balance because Cornucopia also had things like
"What's Going On," which was nominated for a Grammy as "Best Pop
Instrumental."
<< Stanley Jordan >>
--------------------------------------
Cecil Taylor is one of your biggest fans. Have you ever considered trying to
get a recording released which features what you are calling "heavier harmonic
areas and creative explorations" exclusively?
Charlie Robinson Jazz Guitarist, Composer
You can hear me online at: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/robinsonchazz
or: <A HREF="http://rmmgj.iuma.com">http://rmmgj.iuma.com</A>
Thom_j.
into it and didnt know why it kept drawing me in until you just gave a
"who-what-where & why" about Cornucopia..
I dont even know how the poor ol cassette is holding up after all the
playing of it I have done. I better bring it into my computer or make
a dupe before it goes ker'plonk on me.. :) Real nice stuff Stanley!
cheers thom_j.
"Stanley Jordan" wrote:
snip
> Then in the early 90s I started to bring back some of the more "heavy"
> elements to a degree with Cornucopia (1990). (Note: Blue Note may have
> taken this one out of print.) The title track is a 22-minute free
> improvisation with no editing. It definitely goes into some heavier
> harmonic areas and some creative explorations. The electronic piece
> "Asteroids" goes into some rather unusual harmonies as well. I felt I
> had found a good balance because Cornucopia also had things like
> "What's Going On," which was nominated for a Grammy as "Best Pop
> Instrumental."
snip
> Cheers,
>
> Stanley Jordan
> www.stanleyjordan.com
Jay Carlson
"Stanley Jordan" <s...@stanleyjordan.com> wrote in message
news:f6f9a220.02082...@posting.google.com...
> "Jay Carlson" <j...@viaccess.net> wrote in message
news:<ummqnk2...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > I was as amazed as anyone when I first heard that
> > first album back in the early 80s. Amazed at his technique. He's an
> > innovator in the realm of technique, that's great. I hope he is
> > immortalized for it, it may lead to something else, who knows. Even
back
> > then though, he struck me as a novelty, - just never thought of him as
a
> > "heavy"
>
> Jay,
>
> What do you mean by "heavy?" Are you talking about harmonic or
> rhythmic complexity? Speed? Originality? What musical attributes are
> you referring to?
that's entrapment...
Hi Stanley,
What a wonderful reply. Yes I think Magic Touch was the name of one of the
albums I was refering to. I had heard that one and some other. Your
response is everything I would have hoped to read. It's good to hear of
your growth and insights into music and life since your first few albums.
You eloquently summed up my feelings about my impressions of your playing
(from my limited exposure to your stuff). To me, as wowed as I was at the
technique, it was sort of a novelty, it didn't get me emotionally, and I
understand why you felt you had painted yourself into a corner a bit in
relation to your musical community. It's nice to hear that you started to
"rediscover the beauty of the simple", and got your mind out of the way of
the music, and are now "going where the music leads", great stuff. Looks
like I've got some listening to do. I'll go check out your website today.
Re: the meaning of "heavy": I don't know- To use a controversial
word lately, it's kinda "silly". I was replying to a poster who in one fell
swoop dismissed all who contribute to this newsgroup as... I forget the
term, but I don't think it was a good thing :).. and he went on to say how
he felt you were the one Cat who posts now & then. He sort of lumped you
into some sort of elite jazz giants I guess. And from what I had heard of
you, (yes, more early stuff), I didn't think that was justified. So when I
took issue with the statement, it turned out that his reason for praising
you so highly (as far as I could tell) was the technique, which I don't
think is enough. As for "harmonic, rhythmic complexity, speed,
originality..." , as you'd agree, that's not it either. -'course I suppose
it helps.. Maybe I'd put 'motivic development' and "going where the music
leads" above all those things, I don't know... What makes the beautiful and
important stuff so beautiful and important is always hard to talk about, so
I'll stop here, get another cup of coffee, & go warm up the Cary tubes and
listen to some beautiful music.
Looking forward to hearing more of your recent playing,
Jay
http://artists2.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Jay_Carlson/
Cranky
> Now for the last decade or so I have lived a quiet hermetic lifestyle
> with little or no contact with the recording industry, so if you want
> to hear me play, YOU GOTTA COME TO THE GIG, G! I like that, because I
> think people put too much stock in recordings. Recordings have come to
> be more important than live shows, which to me is ass backwards.
Thanks for sharing some of the cycles you have been through. Some
things can only be accomplished in that quiet hermetic lifestyle. To
pull the plug on the music could yield more rapid
growth/revelation/insight with regard to Spirit, but as you know, you
won't get something for nothing. Sounds as though you have a good
balance going, and that possibly music is an integral part of the
feedback loop with regard to your spiritual unfolding.
I've always had respect for you as a player, innovator, and due to
your posts in this group, person.
Great that you dropped in.
JuJu
Stanley Jordan
The title track to Cornucopia was recorded late at night in a hotel
room in Martinique in 1989. It was recorded onto a Walkman DAT via a
Zoom pedal or some sort of digital reverb stompbox or something. I
didn't originally intend to release it. It was really more like a late
night prayer.
After I got home, I would sometimes play the recording and I noticed
that it seemed to have an effect on people, where they would start
talking about deeper thoughts and feelings that they didn't normally
talk about. I decided to put it out because of the music, even though
the sound quality wasn't fantastic. I brought it to Matthew Weiner at
Martin Audio in New York, who had access to some state-of-the-art
noise reduction equipment which cleaned up the tape to the point where
it was acceptable, although still not a great example of the sonic and
dynamic potentials of tapping. I felt that the recording had some good
music that seemed to reach a deeper level with some listeners.
The actual improvisation that I did was at least 3 hours long. The
guitar I used was a Casio PG380 with a built-in synth that tracks the
guitar. I didn't actually start using the synth until about 30 minutes
in, so you don't hear any of that because we only used the first 22
minutes for continuity. So you just hear the pure guitar.
Stanley Jordan
www.stanleyjordan.com
"Thom_j." <thom_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<p42b9.263966$2p2.10...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
Stanley Jordan
Favorite Things," on TCB records. It's just now being released in the
States. I played a lot on that, and if you like jazz, this may be of
interest.
-Stanley Jordan
www.stanleyjordan.com
robins...@aol.com (Charlie Robinson) wrote in message news:<20020828051923...@mb-ma.aol.com>...
Thom_j.
is a 1000'fold better there are many who cant get to hear you live, like
myself.
I would go & hear one of your 'gigs' in a hearbeat but I am basically
confined to my home, & dont know when or if I ever will be able to
enjoy live jazz again?
So my plea is: I hope you do make new CDs of your new work and
hopefully re-master some of your old ones that you feel were not as
good as you wanted via the "mixing boards."
I have listened to you from the beginning, & really like the way you
express yourself. I would certainly love to hear the way your newly
found style {if you will} has grown & progressed.
So, if you are not under a 'heavy hand' of a contractual agreement
hopefully you'll consider doing more new CDs, in the near future!
cheers thom_j.
Thom_j.
was/is" done! Sharing these things with a player like myself gives
a personal touch that the big corporate' imagers dont care about!
Giving us/me this personal story makes this even more intriguing
to me.
I hate to ask this but {aah' no I dont!} is there anyway the entire
3 hours can be acquired, and purchased? Even if you put into a
huge MP3 {yes, I know this isnt the best quality of sound} and
it were 10+'gigs, or more I'd pay & download it. just a thought!
Anyway, thank you for sharing, as it gives me a more personal
relation with you as a musician and always a gentlemen.
cheers thom_j.
"Stanley Jordan" <s...@stanleyjordan.com> wrote in message
news:f6f9a220.02082...@posting.google.com...
George4908
>if you want
>to hear me play, YOU GOTTA COME TO THE GIG
Is this ever true. I'd heard only snippets of your rcordings here and there,
but I went to performance of yours at Blues Alley in Washington, D.C. a few
years ago. Wow. I had no idea what you'd been getting into.
Folks, if you get the chance, go see Stanley Jordan live. A real eye and era
opener about what can be done with the guitar. As he said, the records don't
begin to suggest the half of it.
Charlie Robinson
Favorite Things," on TCB records. It's just now being released in the
States. I played a lot on that, and if you like jazz, this may be of
interest.
-Stanley Jordan
www.stanleyjordan.com >>
----------------------------------------
I'll check into that one for sure, I heard Cody play one night with the Mingus
Big Band and it was awesome.
Paul Sawyer
wrote:
>You see, in the late 70s and early 80s, before I started making
>records, my background had been more in progressive and avant guard
>jazz, "modern classical" and serious computer music. Around 1980 I did
>a live show with the late Arthur Rhames that was recorded but not
>released. I think it blows Magic Touch away in terms of harmonic
>complexity, yet it was recorded 5 years earlier. I'd like to see that
>recording get released someday.
>
Stanley, thank you for the recent posts, very interesting. I saw you
perform way back (late 80's?) and thoroughly enjoyed it. You mention
an unreleased recording with Arthur Rhames, I really hope that that
comes out someday (soon). I've heard so many people rave about Arthur
as a guitarist but I've only been able to find recordings that he did
on saxophone. Was he playing guitar at the show you did? Also, can you
(or somebody out there) tell me of any CDs that feature his guitar
playing? Thanks,
Paul
Bill Francis
--
Bill Francis
Hear some feeble attempts at fusion:
www.mp3.com/billfrancis
"Tom Lippincott" <tomli...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20020827215824...@mb-fb.aol.com...
Tom Walls
billf...@cfl.rr.com says...
> Especially the solo in "Cinnamon Girl": DDDDD DDDDD DDDDD DDDDDD DDDDD
>
Wasn't it DDDDD DDD DDDDD (repeat)?
Proofreading the newsgroup this morning.
Jay Carlson
"Tom Walls" <tw...@REMOVEcornell.edu> wrote in message
It's not his profound melodic sense that grabs me,
it's the polyrhythms.
Jay
http://artists2.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Jay_Carlson/
Tom Walls
play on the DVD release of "The Last Waltz". There is extra footage that
includes a jam at the end of the concert(Clapton leaves the stage). Neil
doesn't do a one note solo, but he does lunge around the stage like a
caveman.
Props to Neil!
Stanley Jordan
I don't know about CDs of Arthur on guitar. But Arthur was
accomplished on saxophone, piano and guitar. On tenor, he was playing
all the Coltrane stuff only with more fire, if you can imagine that.
His piano playing was very much influenced by McCoy Tyner. His guitar
style was quite unique--think of George McLaughlin meets Jimi Coryell.
Of all the musicians I heard and played with in New York in those days
he was my favorite. I heard he did a gig once with Rashied Ali, and
after the gig was over, he just walked off the stage and continued
playing, with unflagging energy, for another 45 minutes.
My college roomate Ken McCarthy turned me on to Arthur. We used to go
see him in New York. In the concert I mentioned, Ken brought Arthur to
Princeton to play in the first season of the "Summer Sounds" concert
series. I lived in Princeton then, having just graduated from the
University. The band was: Jimmy Allington on drums, Dan Krimm on bass,
Arthur on tenor and me on guitar. If I got it right, that would be the
summer of 1981.
The next year, I ran Summer Sounds and brought Arthur back. At that
time, Arthur played all three of his instruments and also sang one
song. But I don't remember if that show was recorded.
One thing I really loved about playing those shows was that Arthur was
a totally no-holds-barred
go-for-the-music-at-the-highest-level-right-from-the-start kind of
musician. Very few of the people at the Princeton shows had ever heard
jazz or any kind of music with the kind of sohistication and raw
energy of the music we made, and yet they loved it. It was delivered
straight from the us with no hesitation, no second-guessing (will they
understand the avant guard stuff today?) just pure unadulterated
creative expression.
I would say Arthur was an inspiration in this regard, and in terms of
his commitment to his spirituality. Musicians are always taught to be
insecure, starting from an early age. We hear from parents who wonder
if we'll be able to make a decent living, or sibilings who are tired
of all the practicing or friends telling us that the music we're
learning isn't hip enough, or teachers telling us we're not good
enough to make it or restaurant owners telling us we don't draw enough
customers, or PR agents telling us our wardrobe is out of date or
record companies and managers telling us we need to be more commercial
or spouses telling us we're selfish to spend so much time making music
or critics who say that we're not playing in the correct style--it
goes on and on. The fact is, TODAY'S WORLD IS NOT SET UP TO NURTURE
THE TRUE MUSICAL ARTIST. That's why so much music sucks today.
Someone told me Stanley Crouch gave Arthur a bad review. I didn't see
the review, but I found it incomprehensible that the music business
and critics didn't pick up on what he was doing. There was all the
talk about the "Young Lions" in those days, but nobody was playing
like Arthur. I think the last time I saw him he had taken a
construction job to pay the rent. It's a shame--our culture has not
figured out how to nurture the arts!
But there's a way out of that. You just get up there and you play the
f***ing music, exactly as you hear it, exactly as you are inspired to
play it. I watched Arthur do that again and again, and in that way, he
changed the World. That's why people are still talking about him
today. He had enormous talent, and he used it to the fullest.
We the musicians need to take back the music and the music world. We
need to play our true music that we feel inside. And we need to tell
our own stories rather than have others speak for us. Does the
mainstream World really understand how much the people need creative
music? It's a matter of soul survival.
-Stanley Jordan
www.stanleyjordan.com
Unknown
wrote:
>We the musicians need to take back the music and the music world. We
>need to play our true music that we feel inside. And we need to tell
>our own stories rather than have others speak for us. Does the
>mainstream World really understand how much the people need creative
>music? It's a matter of soul survival.
>
Solid advice, Stanley. Solid.
JuJu Voodoo
From: "Stanley Jordan" <s...@stanleyjordan.com>
> The fact is, TODAY'S WORLD IS NOT SET UP TO NURTURE
> THE TRUE MUSICAL ARTIST.
> nobody was playing
> like Arthur. I think the last time I saw him he had taken a
> construction job to pay the rent. It's a shame--our culture has not
> figured out how to nurture the arts!
"Our," culture is not about that.
> But there's a way out of that. You just get up there and you play the
> f***ing music, exactly as you hear it, exactly as you are inspired to
> play it. I watched Arthur do that again and again, and in that way, he
> changed the World. That's why people are still talking about him
> today. He had enormous talent, and he used it to the fullest.
Stanley, in a sense there's a flaw in logic here. He DIDN'T get the
way out of that. That being said, I understand what you are saying
about burning the candle and providing light for self and others.
> We the musicians need to take back the music and the music world. We
> need to play our true music that we feel inside. And we need to tell
> our own stories rather than have others speak for us. Does the
> mainstream World really understand how much the people need creative
> music? It's a matter of soul survival.
The noose is tightening, the net is being drawn in. Coarser and
coarser. More programmed robots than real people. Creativity is about
exploration and reporting. The powers that be don't want people
looking and reporting. They want them anxious and consuming the
planet.
It is more than just a matter of music.
To have a foundation that is conducive to the flourishing of art means
there has to be a sense of stability and security. True, there is art
born in adversity. But only the strongest are able in such a climate.
I've put my, "art," where my words are. My rock and roll cd is done.
There's a very substantial part of me that would have loved to be just
me and a guitar and free flight. But the song that kicked this thing
off is of a certain type, as were subsequent ditties. I have stayed
the course with the material.
A, "bogey man," song, followed by a spirit song, lead the cd version
that went to every U.S. Senator, the President, and the Secretary of
Labor.
To plant seeds of societal change, the goal.
Yes, I truly put my art where my mouth is.
I haven't noticed any FBI yet. Notoriously out of the loop, sync wise,
they are. Some of the packages probably opened this week.
I'm already fatigued with music, because this was as much a, "job," as
anything else, in the sense of soldiering.
I might have enough gas left to get some cds to corporate honchos,
WalMart, etc. And then again, maybe not.
I'm already pretty damn tired.
> -Stanley Jordan
> www.stanleyjordan.com
JuJu Voodoo
Richard
> From: "Stanley Jordan" <s...@stanleyjordan.com>
>
> [....]
>
> A, "bogey man," song, followed by a spirit song, lead the cd version
> that went to every U.S. Senator, the President, and the Secretary of
>
> I haven't noticed any FBI yet. Notoriously out of the loop, sync wise,
And we wonder why we don't see more "name" players participating here.
--
To e-mail me, put NOT SPAM in the Subject or I won't see your message.
ObDisclaimer: This post contains personal opinions only
ObURL: http://home.earthlink.net/~huddler
Mark Kleinhaut
s...@stanleyjordan.com (Stanley Jordan) wrote:
(snip)
>
>We the musicians need to take back the music and the music world. We
>need to play our true music that we feel inside. And we need to tell
>our own stories rather than have others speak for us.
We're trying man, we're trying:)
--------------------Mark Kleinhaut
markkl...@hotmail.com
Info and soundclips about:
"Chasing Tales":
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Chasing%20Tales.html
"Amphora":
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Amphora.html
"Secrets of Three": http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/SO3.html
Doc
> need to play our true music that we feel inside. And we need to tell
> our own stories rather than have others speak for us. Does the
> mainstream World really understand how much the people need creative
> music? It's a matter of soul survival.
>
> -Stanley Jordan
No truer words have been spoken for a long time. No matter how many machines
they have that play music, no one can take away your soul. Music from the
soul will survive. I say take away the producers and the machines and JAM
that's where the music is and always will be.
--
Doc
http://www.trimcrafters.com/drg.htm
Tom Walls
s...@stanleyjordan.com says...
snip
> We the musicians need to take back the music and the music world. We
> need to play our true music that we feel inside. And we need to tell
> our own stories rather than have others speak for us. Does the
> mainstream World really understand how much the people need creative
> music? It's a matter of soul survival.
>
> -Stanley Jordan
> www.stanleyjordan.com
>
Tell it like it is, Stanley!