Rene Thomas

[batkins]

Saturday, February 25 Happy Birthday Rene Thomas!

If you were still with us, you would have been 85 years old! As
Laurent-Goddet (of Jazz-Hot) said in his liner notes of 'Meeting Mr.
Thomas,' "One autumn day he took to the road in Spain, and just forgot
to come back. We are left with the extraordinary absurd stories which
always seem to surround his life, which serve to remind us of the
astonishing fact that the greatest jazz guitarist of his era was quite
simple a Belgian!" RIP Rene!

[joel fass]

I don't know if he---or anyone else is the greatest---and doubt there
is any such thing, except mostly in the minds of the small-minded.
Very few greats IMO. The good news is that not only is there no shame
in being GOOD---but that in itself is damn hard.

Rene Thomas sure WAS good. He took from Jimmy Raney, Django, and
later Grant Green---and made himself out of that and his own stuff.
You don't get to play with Stan Getz, Sonny Rollins, and Chet Baker
being a slouch. I like his work on Dynasty best. Any day one of us
guitarists play next to Eddy Louiss and there's something left of our
ass afterwards other than ashy residue is a good day.

[Mitch]

A wonderful, and too often overlooked guitarist. I love all of his
stuff I've heard, but hold a special place for "Chet is Back," with
Chet Baker (Chet is in top form on this one, too).
Mitch

[joel fass]

> Mitch- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There must've been a nice scene in Liege in the '50s---before these
guys left and found fame. I can't think of the tenor player's name now
(f'ing CRS...). Not Barney Wilen. He played with Miles right after
Trane and recorded with Jimmy Raney. Someone will know it---and I'll
probably remember right after I post (; He was a MF, though. And was
Lars Gullen from there too? Probably not. Name sounds Scandanavian.

[joel fass]

> Lars Gullen from there too? Probably not. Name sounds Scandanavian.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

BOBBY JASPAR!!!

Thank heaven for google.....

[Mitch]

Yeah...'Bobby Jaspar! He played great flute, too! Attila Zoller told
me they had a quartet together for a while in the early '60s. I would
have loved to have heard that!
Mitch

[Mitch]

On Feb 25, 12:44 am, batkins <batkin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

I think Booby was from Belgium...Like Rene!
Mitch

[Bg]

>
>  Rene Thomas sure WAS good. He took from Jimmy Raney, Django, and
> later Grant Green---and made himself out of that and his own stuff.

Methinks Rene Thomas preceeded Grant Green.
Rene was certainly fully formed on a recording I have of him done in
1960.

Bg

[thomas]

A while back someone (RB?) posted a Raney clip from the late 40s that
contained some of GG's pet phrasing. Perhaps RT and GG both got it
from the same source.

[joel fass]

I thought everyone knew that.

Jimmy was snotty about Grant, though. I have to admit he's not a great
favorite, but he was when I was younger. I remember sticking up for
Grant (and myself for liking him) to Jimmy. Not sure what his reasons
were, but that's him. I had opinions, too, even though I was a kid.
It's natural to discuss likes and dislikes with a teacher. We both of
us opined and listened. In that way he was a pretty humble guy.

I guess it goes for all of us that the only opinion that really counts
is the one we make playing. Except for those listening. That one's got
to count more IMO If no one likes your work time to sell storm windows.

[joel fass]

On Feb 25, 4:58 pm, Bg <ottg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

He did proceed Grant Green. I prefer Rene Thomas myself, actually. But
listen to a record called (I think Eddy Louiss Trio). Early 70s, maybe
late '60s. He sure sounds a lot like Grant Green to me.

The only troubling thing about both those guys to me is they didn't
seem to give a rat's ass about accompanying anyone. To me that's not
being a complete musician. I guess you can say that about more than
one of the greats, including Charlie Christian. No one person can do
everything, or maybe they shouldn't have to. They should play what
they need to and what their ear and heart and experience suggest. But
it kind of bugs me that people always mention the soloists more than
the players who could really fit into a group AND solo. John Collins
was one of the greats too.

[pmfan57]

On Feb 25, 4:58 pm, Bg <ottg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Rene's playing changed towards the later 60s and it sounds to me like
he absorbed some Green stylings at that time. Obviously his early
stuff was not influenced at all by Green, who was unknown at the
time. Rene I think influenced later players such as Philip Catherine,
John McLaughlin and even Coryell I believe.

The OP of this thread does not believe Rene was ever influenced by
Green (even later), but I don't agree.

[joel fass]

On Feb 25, 4:58 pm, Bg <ottg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Bg]

>
> The only troubling thing about both those guys to me is they didn't
> seem to give a rat's ass about accompanying anyone. To me that's not
> being a complete musician. I guess you can say that about more than
> one of the greats, including Charlie Christian. No one person can do
> everything, or maybe they shouldn't have to. They should play what
> they need to and what their ear and heart and experience suggest. But
> it kind of bugs me that people always mention the soloists more than
> the players who could really fit into a group AND solo. John Collins
> was one of the greats too.

How True. I'm afraid George Benson is also not a very good accompanist
behind somebody else either.
I on the other am a pretty OK accompanist, but will Never be a great
soloist, harmony rather than soloing has alway been my focus.

Wes also said he didn't like comping although he could do it.
He preferred to play figures in Chord or Octaves like big band
riffs, rather than straight ahead comping like Pat Martino for
example.

Bg

[joel fass]

When I was in City College in the Jazz BFA program you got to get
private lessons. On the excuse that my reading sucked Bob Norden
hooked me up with Jim Mitchell. Jim played for Sesame Street for years
and is generally a great guy. I haven't spoken to him for years.

But we must have been having a conversation similar to this b/c Jim---
possibly denigrating his solo ability, I don't really remember---told
me he was 'a genius at making other people sound good'. I don't have
to tell you guys and gals what an epiphany THAT was to hear from
someone. Talk about 'going the other way'.....

[Bg]

>
> He did proceed Grant Green. I prefer Rene Thomas myself, actually. But
> listen to a record called (I think Eddy Louiss Trio). Early 70s, maybe
> late '60s. He sure sounds a lot like Grant Green to me.
>

I went to Amazon and listened to the samples on that recording, If
it's the one with Nardis and You've Changed, and I'm only hearing the
Raney approach as far as lines go.
On the last tune a Bluesy thing, he may be more funky, but these
samples aren't very long.
I should order that CD though. Thanks.
Bg

[pmfan57]

His stuff with Eddy Louis, like Stan Getz Dynasty show his later
style. He played very different than his early years. He doesn't
sound anything like Raney at that point.

On this video, starting at around 1:50 he definitely shows some Grant
Green influence. This is from the late 60s.

http://youtu.be/QA0phKL1djQ

[Paul K]

here's a good Rene Thomas website,

http://thomasia.free.fr/accueil.php

which has a complete discography.



--
Paul K
http://www.youtube.com/user/fibrationboy
http://www.soundclick.com/paulkirk
http://mypage.iu.edu/~pkirk/

[batkins]

I'm glad to see everyone's responses from my original post today.
This U-tube recording is from the Dynasty period, just doesn't have
Getz with them.
The period is sometime in the 70s, which was the Dynasty period, Eddie
Louise on organ and Bernard Lubat
on drums.

I respect all of you fellow guitarists who love Rene. I don't think he
was the greatest of his period,
but somehow I think Laurent meant to say that Django was the greatest,
and that Rene was truly
Belgian, eccentric like Django.

Now about the Green influence on Rene, I have my own opinions which I
tried to express to a young foriegn guitarist
who thought Rene was influenced by Grant.. I went overboard and sent
this as a personal reply on FB, just a message to an individual not to
FB Rene fans as a whole.

He never acknowleged my email, I guess I really P--- him off. So I
will include my very lengthy personal reply below. Please doen't be
offended, it's only my opinion! Here it is:

I'm glad we both share an admiration for Rene and Grant's playing.
I've been listening to Rene Thomas and Grant Green for a long, long
time but I find no consious influence of Grant Green's style in Rene's
playing. I have most of Rene’s official LP and CDs and also a lot of
bootlegs. Both Grant and Rene may play some of the same intervals and
modes, but that was basically 60's jazz playing. While Grant and Rene
both leaned on the Dorian mode (like Miles), quite often and both
played the same intervals, #11, 13th, 9th, b9, #9, b5ths etc in their
solos, there is really no big influence of Rene on Grant or vice
versus.. I have Rene's later work in the 1970s, mainly the very rare
LP, TLP, stands for Thomas, Peltzer, Inc . and there is no notable
stylistic incorporation of Green's style into Rene's playing.

Rene was his own man, (except for the early Raney influence LPs)
especially in later years. His style is so unique and guitaristic (as
is Grants) but I don't believe Rene tried to incorporate Grant's
playing into his style. According to some French guitarists that I've
spoken to in person who knew Rene personally, Rene's main influence in
his later years, the 64-70's was John Coltrane. He wasn't interested
much in guitarists at this point. His last CD was "Hommage a Rene
Thomas," which is a live recording from Holland from February 1974.
He plays two of the tunes that he played for the last 10-11 years of
his life, George Cable's "Jesus Think of Me, “the title Rene jokingly
called it though Cables named it "Think on Me," I believe. The second
tune (he played many time in his later years is "Star Eyes." He also
played "Star Eyes" with Chet Baker in the 60s on Chet's LP "The
Italian Sessions," recorded in 1962. Rene even uses some distortion in
his sound on the "Hommage" LP.

On the Vogel LP, “TLP,” Rene’s guitar sound is harsh and he was very
unhappy with this recording because of the way the engineer recorded
his sound. I almost hated the "TLP" LP when I first got it. I
traveled on the train from Paris to some small town in Belgium just to
get the LP. I bought 4 LPs of the “TLP” LPs and when I first listened
to the LP, I did not care for it. Today I got out my last known copy
and have been listening to it 3-4 times and I love it, even if the
guitar tone or sound is poor. There's is nothing on this LP that
sounds like Grant's style, at least to me. Rene is “tres modern,” and
his approach in his later years showed his development. He had an ear
like no one, who else could copy Raney with the same precision and
exact nuance? But Rene was much more than Raney, he could play a
ballad with a touch that was magical and personal; he had not only
Raney in his phrasing but also Django. I have a bootleg of Rene
playing “Nuages,” and it’s totally Rene’s style. I have another
bootleg of him playing Star Dust on acoustic guitar; he sound a bit
influenced by Django on this, but again it is pure Rene. “There was no
one who played better, yet there was no one so totally screwed up.”
This is a quote from a French bassist that I spoke to about Rene. I
stayed in Paris for 3-4 months in 1979. I also spent one month there
in 1975. I made it my mission to find out as much about Rene as
possible.
As for Philip Catherine and Christian Escoude, their main influence
(besides Django) is Rene. Not need to copy Django after Raney came to
Paris, Django was passé. Catherine and Escoude both knew this. Both
knew Rene well and he even joked about them copying his approach. He
told Escoude, “You could do much worse.” No one could make their
guitar sing like Rene, and no one else has the same touch. My guitar
teacher, Jack Peterson remarked to me after hearing Rene play “You’ve
Changed,” “Man what a touch this guy had for the guitar.”

I think one reason that Rene style sometimes reminds us of Grant is
due to the tone of Rene's ES-150 and the tone of Grant's old Epiphone
and to blues phrases that most jazz guitarist incorporate. In this
respect, they do sound similar, but any consious attempt of Rene
trying to incorporate Green's playing style, expecially in his later
career, seems unlikely.

[TD]

> career, seems unlikely.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

"

"But Rene was much more than Raney..."

Nope.

-TD

[joel fass]

Wow. That was more analytical than I would ever get. Maybe I'm lazy.
The Trane thing is probably true. Some of the tunes on Dynasty itself
were sort of open-ended and modal. I think, other than Stan, Louiss
was the real force in that group---and I do mean FORCE---as in of
nature. The 4 parts meshed very well, though. According to the
bullshit liner notes Lubat wasn't even a 'jazz drummer'. No shit? He
was THAT day. All the more reason to learn what you're doing then only
trust your ears. Ignore most of the fol-de-rol that finds its way onto
album notes and you'll have a way better time. I say this having been
one of the prime examples, as a kid, that read that mush and was
schmuck enough to buy into it. And then you grow up....

We can tie a ribbon on this thing by saying that few musicians exist
in a vacuum. Few people do. That's a GOOD thing. You need models,
especially when starting out*. Why wouldn't you? Also, I believe what
we take for creativity is often a sort of furniture re-arrangement. If
you can make the room look like your own who cares if you didn't build
the sofa? That's what most really good players do, they take what's
appealing, add their bit, and voice (if they've bothered to develop
one), put it in the funnel---and usually it'll come out some version
of themselves. So Rene Thomas and many other worthy players
exemplified this time-honored tradition.

I'll add one bit of good news: There are exciting things happening in
Europe now in jazz. Certain cultures have adopted an 'enough already,
fuck America' stance. They are finding styles of improvising based on
their own traditions, voices, and rhythms. Poland, Italy---I've heard
exciting music from these places.

I think of the Hot Club generation and the Europeans of the next
generation as pioneers----but the only models they knew were American.
They took to jazz early and there were ex-pats already living there
like Coleman Hawkins and Bill Coleman. Read the late Josef Skvorecky's
prologue to the Bass Saxophone to see how much influence swing had by
the late 30s---the nazis already had virulent campaigns denouncing
'JudeoNegro music', and rules about march tempi, etc. It was really
insane. But jazz meant freedom, and America was looked to as the
freedom bellweather. But that was then. Now I believe much of the new
life in jazz will be breathed from abroad.

*If you're still merely a copycat 20-30 years later,
well................

[Gerry]

On 2012-02-26 06:08:27 +0000, batkins said:

> He never acknowleged my email, I guess I really P--- him off.

That's called "interaction" on facebook.

> So I will include my very lengthy personal reply below. Please doen't be
> offended, it's only my opinion! Here it is:

Oh I see. Noting the length of your response I think you've misplaced
yourself in cultural history. People can no longer read posts of this
length. Four to five sentences is about maximum, though some older
people can make it twice that far.

I assume he never read your post though he glanced at it a few times,
each time feeling more guilty that he hadn't read it and responded.
This ended when he could tolerate the social weight no more and either
deleted the post, or refused to acknowledge its presence further.
--
There will be no economic recovery without addressing taxes:
http://tinyurl.com/76pqm4q

[joel fass]

You guys are losing me now. Who 'he'?

[batkins]

Gerry,

I always admire your posts about most anything and you have a valid
point ---- but---- this long winded message of mine was sent to his
personal email account after numerous exchanges between us. Could it
have been shorter? Yes Should it have? Yes. So my reply is overkill
but I had to go back and listen to all Rene's stuff in the 70s (on my
own time) to see if I could detect why folks think Rene was
incorporating Geen's playing in his "later 70s style."

Those that are really interested in Rene will read it, just for the
personal info about Rene I give, if they don't really care about this
subject or Rene they won't..

Since it was his 85th birthday, I let the long winded reply out of the
bag onto RMMJG, I almost condensed it but said no, leave it as is.

Byron

[van]

I think Rene's best LP was the live record he did with Bobby Jaspar
in Paris in the early 1960s Daniel Humair was on drums.. At that
point, he had shed his Raney copying, and fully came into his own.
Great chops, too, unlike some parts of "Guitar Groove", where he
doesn't quite make it on some tunes.
Raney was really bugged about RT when he started getting popular,
saying that "he's copying my playing down to the nuances, and no one
notices".

[Gerry]

On 2012-02-26 18:36:54 +0000, batkins said:

> On Feb 26, 12:16 pm, Gerry <addr...@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-02-26 06:08:27 +0000, batkins said:
>>
>>> He never acknowleged my email, I guess I really P--- him off.
>>
>> That's called "interaction" on facebook.
>>
>>> So I will include my very lengthy personal reply below. Please doen't be
>>> offended, it's only my opinion! Here it is:
>>
>> Oh I see. Noting the length of your response I think you've misplaced
>> yourself in cultural history.  People can no longer read posts of this
>> length.  Four to five sentences is about maximum, though some older
>> people can make it twice that far.
>>
>> I assume he never read your post though he glanced at it a few times,
>> each time feeling more guilty that he hadn't read it and responded.
>> This ended when he could tolerate the social weight no more and either
>> deleted the post, or refused to acknowledge its presence further.
>

> Gerry,
>
> I always admire your posts about most anything...

Thank you so much, o fellow reader!

> ...and you have a valid

> point ---- but---- this long winded message of mine was sent to his
> personal email account after numerous exchanges between us. Could it
> have been shorter? Yes Should it have? Yes.

I disagree. I think in length it was perfect. But I am clearly a
genetic throwback.

Actually informing me that it was private email lends itself more
directly to my thinking--though it may well be different in other
"delivery systems" such as facebook in which you have these "walls"
that you can smear things on. It is precisely in email that longer
posts more greatly inflict this cycle of procrastination, guilt,
procrastination, guilt until the only solution is found: disregard.
Possibly followed up by a mealy excuse. Send that guy a note and find
out whether it was "lost" or "forgotten" with appropriate apologies.

As I have tried to remind others, primarily novice blogsters, that one
conceives "whether they are being read" at their peril. Write, deliver,
and then forget it. Your duty, to yourself and those with an interest
(they may discover it long after you're gone), is done.

Once I wrote a very long letter probably THREE of ye olde "pages". A
full year later I received a reply. He really fell on his sword this
guy, in a most flattering way. He told my that my letter was so hip,
so cool, so wise that he realized he would have to roll up his sleeves
to respond in kind. He was a writer too, so that made sense.

A year later, having given up, he finally write the apology. One of my
favorite apologies ever.

Here's how I address the issue in private email when someone starts off
with all the self-flagellation, just so they know I understand the full
range of emotion:

Penitence: http://grab.by/aSEI

> So my reply is overkill
> but I had to go back and listen to all Rene's stuff in the 70s (on my
> own time) to see if I could detect why folks think Rene was
> incorporating Geen's playing in his "later 70s style."
>
> Those that are really interested in Rene will read it, just for the
> personal info about Rene I give, if they don't really care about this
> subject or Rene they won't..
>
> Since it was his 85th birthday, I let the long winded reply out of the
> bag onto RMMJG, I almost condensed it but said no, leave it as is.

I'm delighted to find you did not. My perspectives regarding the
recession of human focus remain unchanged. Actually it's not about a
"loss of focus" per se, so much as it is the overwhelming nature of
distraction. Even "pride": they call it their ability to "multi-task"
(aka incompetence at numerous things rather than just one). But that is
for another topic.

[Gerry]

On 2012-02-26 19:16:50 +0000, van said:

> Raney was really bugged about RT when he started getting popular,
> saying that "he's copying my playing down to the nuances, and no one
> notices".

I wonder if Bird ever felt that way and whether he considered it insulting.

[TD]

> notices".- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Yea, I used to think of Rene and Gourley as two pods that took root
near Raney while he was napping.

-TD

[TD]

Stealing is one thing, but out and out deliberate cloning is entirely
another. Bird was also much more known.

-TD

[Gerry]

On 2012-02-26 20:03:43 +0000, TD said:

> Yea, I used to think of Rene and Gourley as two pods that took root
> near Raney while he was napping.

You make the invasion of the body-snatchers sound like a good idea…

[joel fass]

On Feb 26, 3:01 pm, Gerry <addr...@domain.com> wrote:

Lee Konitz, in a radio interview on WKCR, put to rest the story that
Parker admired him and complimented him by saying 'hey, man you don't
sound like me!'

'I think he meant I should sound more like him', Konitz cracked.

[joel fass]

I heard Gourley live at Bradley's. OK, but IMO not even close to Rene
Thomas in talent. When I read his bitter and jealous remarks putting
down players on the then-scene (90s) I just laughed.

[TD]

> down players on the then-scene (90s) I just laughed.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Having met him (G) in Paris (Hall introduced us), I know what you
mean.

-TD

[joel fass]

I never met the man and have nothing against him. Just seemed like his
bitterness way exceeded his talent---like a lot of boring people that
should know better.

[Mitch]

Now that I think about it, some of the hottest Rene you'll ever hear
(or best bop guitar playing, for that matter), is on that Bobby Jaspar-
Reme Thomas Quartet recording live at Ronnie Scott's.
I think it was on Mole Jazz from about 1962... Whew!
Mitch

[pmfan57]

You never know with Konitz. He has a wry sense of humor. Just read
his book. I think other people have reported that Bird had a high
regard for Konitz and especially Tristano. Bird made a particular
point in one interview that he fully supports Tristano's explorations
(clearly in response to some Tristano detractors among the boppers).

[van]

Yeah, that was the one I mentioned, but I thought it was Paris,
because Daniel Humair was on drums- my mistake.
Like when I caught Jimmy Raney live in the late 80s, you could listen
to it today, and not one note sounds dated.
Anyone who says that type of playing is not "modern" or "hip" enough
today, has no understanding of what jazz is about, IMHO, of course. ;
- )
I was disappointed when I heard one of Gourley's later (2000?)
recordings. The feel was pretty hip, but the notes were all wrong.
Horrible.

[TD]

> Horrible.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Humair is a good drummer, by the way. One of the few over there. He is
also an excellent painter (artist).

-TD

[joel fass]

I'm just randomly picking a post to take this further and into a
referendum on being ourselves---generally, also finding something of
one's own---and how that ramifies outward. I read this going there, so
I'm upping the ante---at least in my own statement:

People remain copycats when they are too lazy or untalented to dig
into their own inner resources. Someone mentioned Tristano. Well, he
may be controversial and I only pick him b/c I knew a trumpet player
of---I thought---little talent. He studied w/Lennie for years and told
me Lennie told him 'there's a (name omitted) in you somewhere, and
we're gonna dig him out.

This can be taken to realms beyond music and why the hell not discuss
it from here?---art being a great teacher. It seems the world can
change when individualists do something of use to all---or even a few
who take it somewhere else. Then there's collaboration between bright
people. Again, let's thinik in terms of all walks of life other than
art: the sciences, social sectors, etc. Then it becomes an issue of
what do you do with your finding? Do you humbly keep it 'on the block'
for yourself and a few people you may be able to help or influence? Do
you try to make money off it b/c that's your God? Do you give it away,
to see others profit then regret it?

My feeling is one should do one's thing, assuming it's benign at least
and possibly much more, and not worry about the consequences. Just use
your talents and the people you've been lucky to have been around to
bring them out to do some good. Teachers do this routinely, but anyone
that has a gift of any kind and isn't afraid to be him/herself can do
it, and do it quitely.

I think this whole recognition/glory thing messes a lot of us up. It
can take one off the path of the work itself. In our case it's music.
But the idea of money and fame is like a Lorelei many chase but few
catch. Ironically, it seems---from what i can observe---that people
feel copying will guarantee them a place in a clique, and employment
with that same clique. But if you stick to your guns no one can take
what you've found away. And if you helped people with that talent it
will really outlast your own life.


That was long. Time for me to close down Sermonette. But, seriously
(serio-comedically?(; ) does this----whatever the hell this IS----
resonate with anyone here?

[Bg]

I pretty well agree with all of the above, the only thing needed is to
have a bit of objective quality control in one's art. Just because I
think something I do might be great it may not be in fact, until I've
worked on it and formed it into a great concept, approach or
whatever.

Bill Evans often mentioned having occassional wonderful gig nights,
But he would alway have backup concepts and things to fall back on to
keep his playing at a very high level, even when he felt uninspired,
or bad piano etc.

But yeah, we Must work on those things that make us individual!
Bg

Bg

[TD]

Many players can *only learn by copying* and carrying over to sheer
mimicry. If they are great at doing that ( and not just copying one
player or one style), besides being champ sight-readers, they might be
prime for studio dates (which are few and far between, but not
impossible). Cloning, for example to be a jazz player, can be
dangerous and lead to a very rude awakening. On the other hand, only
venturing out to "have your own style" ( I speak of learners) is also
dangerous, if you cannot cut the mustard within the tradition.
Foundations are important. Paying homage to the idiom with it's
tradition and set of norms will better insure work until you are lucky
enough to make it on your own "style." And yet, playing a few choruses
on a tune will quickly tell who has his/her own voice ( having ones
own voice can work well within any arena), but to vie for "just trying
to be different" is a dangerous road. Homework must be done first and
foremost. I do realize the instant dilemma being imposed. "They" tend
to judge the player on what they are able to compare the playing to.
This ritual can easily lead to psychological problems for the learner.
Again, it's personal. It involves wisdom early on.

-TD

[joel fass]

I should be more specific---especially since everyone wants to keep it
to music---which is cool. I'm not talking about 'only having your own
style'. That can be self-delusional. If you're that original word will
get back to you. If what you do is better than what common practice is
and people adopt it that's real innovation.

I'm talking about growing up, finding what it is you do, don't do---
and how to use those gifts to better yourself, others, and----
sheeiiit----make a buck. Possible to do all of the above and have a
happy life, even a family.

[TD]

> happy life, even a family.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Is what I get for skimming.

[Gerry]

On 2012-02-27 18:39:34 +0000, joel fass said:

> That was long. Time for me to close down Sermonette. But, seriously
> (serio-comedically?(; ) does this----whatever the hell this IS----
> resonate with anyone here?

I think so yeah.

> People remain copycats when they are too lazy or untalented to dig
> into their own inner resources.

I think people have varying levels of talent and of passion. My uncle
and grandpa weren't lazy or untalented, but they had a limited amount
of time to dispense to things like music, things like the guitar. They
weren't trying to copy anybody per se, just play, sing, learn new songs
and entertain people.

I think that's fine too. Each of us selects what is important in life,
and for many of us here music is vital, for others music is a regular
pleasure, and for others it's of consistent but limited importance.

> Someone mentioned Tristano. Well, he
> may be controversial and I only pick him b/c I knew a trumpet player
> of---I thought---little talent. He studied w/Lennie for years and told
> me Lennie told him 'there's a (name omitted) in you somewhere, and
> we're gonna dig him out.
>
> This can be taken to realms beyond music and why the hell not discuss
> it from here?---art being a great teacher.

I think implying there is a (name omitted) to be dug from the other
aspects of our life: Spiritually, domestically, poetically. If so I
agree, but finding a model for all these aspects of our lives (name
omitted) it's always the best pass to personal fulfillment, in that it
is referential: You could become a copycat.

> It seems the world can
> change when individualists do something of use to all---or even a few
> who take it somewhere else. Then there's collaboration between bright
> people. Again, let's thinik in terms of all walks of life other than
> art: the sciences, social sectors, etc. Then it becomes an issue of
> what do you do with your finding? Do you humbly keep it 'on the block'
> for yourself and a few people you may be able to help or influence? Do
> you try to make money off it b/c that's your God? Do you give it away,
> to see others profit then regret it?

Life is to be shared.

> My feeling is one should do one's thing, assuming it's benign at least
> and possibly much more, and not worry about the consequences. Just use
> your talents and the people you've been lucky to have been around to
> bring them out to do some good. Teachers do this routinely, but anyone
> that has a gift of any kind and isn't afraid to be him/herself can do
> it, and do it quitely.

Not everyone is a teacher. Many remain students in all disciplines but
one or two, and they are frequently about family, and keeping it fed.

> I think this whole recognition/glory thing messes a lot of us up. It
> can take one off the path of the work itself. In our case it's music.
> But the idea of money and fame is like a Lorelei many chase but few
> catch. Ironically, it seems---from what i can observe---that people
> feel copying will guarantee them a place in a clique, and employment
> with that same clique. But if you stick to your guns no one can take
> what you've found away. And if you helped people with that talent it
> will really outlast your own life.

I agree absolutely. I left music-as-a-profession when I was 32-ish,
and felt that untethering my musical pursuits from my income allowed my
musical brain to grow all kinds of ways, letting my whim be my guide.
It's been gread.

[Gerry]

On 2012-02-28 00:15:30 +0000, joel fass said:

> I'm talking about growing up, finding what it is you do, don't do---
> and how to use those gifts to better yourself, others, and----
> sheeiiit----make a buck. Possible to do all of the above and have a
> happy life, even a family.

And possibly to identify which of those things it is worth your time
and energy to address, and in what order.

[Tim McNamara]

In article
<38dd7efd-62a1-4c1c...@f5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

joel fass <fass...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I'm just randomly picking a post to take this further and into a
> referendum on being ourselves---generally, also finding something of
> one's own---and how that ramifies outward. I read this going there,
> so I'm upping the ante---at least in my own statement:
>
> People remain copycats when they are too lazy or untalented to dig
> into their own inner resources. Someone mentioned Tristano. Well, he
> may be controversial and I only pick him b/c I knew a trumpet player
> of---I thought---little talent. He studied w/Lennie for years and
> told me Lennie told him 'there's a (name omitted) in you somewhere,
> and we're gonna dig him out.

A good teacher offers the skills to do exactly that.

> This can be taken to realms beyond music and why the hell not discuss
> it from here?---art being a great teacher. It seems the world can
> change when individualists do something of use to all---or even a few
> who take it somewhere else.

Your comment reminds of George Bernard Shaw: "The reasonable man adapts
himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt
the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the
unreasonable man."

> Then there's collaboration between bright people. Again, let's thinik
> in terms of all walks of life other than art: the sciences, social
> sectors, etc. Then it becomes an issue of what do you do with your
> finding?

Unlike art, the sciences have peer review, independent verification,
reproducibility, etc., which are not applicable to arts.

> Do you humbly keep it 'on the block' for yourself and a few people
> you may be able to help or influence? Do you try to make money off it
> b/c that's your God? Do you give it away, to see others profit then
> regret it?

Or perhaps give it away and be pleased by seeing what others do with it.

> My feeling is one should do one's thing, assuming it's benign at
> least and possibly much more, and not worry about the consequences.
> Just use your talents and the people you've been lucky to have been
> around to bring them out to do some good. Teachers do this routinely,
> but anyone that has a gift of any kind and isn't afraid to be
> him/herself can do it, and do it quitely.
>
> I think this whole recognition/glory thing messes a lot of us up. It
> can take one off the path of the work itself. In our case it's music.
>
> But the idea of money and fame is like a Lorelei many chase but few
> catch. Ironically, it seems---from what i can observe---that people
> feel copying will guarantee them a place in a clique, and employment
> with that same clique.

Yeah, you can see that dynamic in any high school, college and most
workplaces.

> But if you stick to your guns no one can take what you've found away.
> And if you helped people with that talent it will really outlast your
> own life.

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an
idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it
to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the
possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of
it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less,
because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea
from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who
lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

"That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for
the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his
condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by
nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space,
without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which
we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement
or exclusive appropriation."

Thomas Jefferson

--
There is not enough time to do all the nothing we want to do. (Bill Watterson)

[Graham]

On Feb 28, 3:02 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> Unlike art, the sciences have peer review, independent verification,
> reproducibility, etc., which are not applicable to arts.

Hey, perhaps that's not such a bad idea:
"Would you mind peer-reviewing my solo before I play it?"

[danstearns]

On Feb 26, 1:03 am, pmfan57 <jwrag...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 6:38 pm, Bg <ottg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > He did proceed Grant Green. I prefer Rene Thomas myself, actually. But
> > > listen to a record called (I think Eddy Louiss Trio). Early 70s, maybe
> > > late '60s. He sure sounds a lot like Grant Green to me.
>
> > I went to Amazon and listened to the samples on that recording, If
> > it's the one with Nardis and You've Changed, and I'm only hearing the
> > Raney approach as far as lines go.
> > On the last tune a Bluesy thing, he may be more funky, but these
> > samples aren't very long.
> > I should order that CD though. Thanks.
> > Bg
>
> His stuff with Eddy Louis, like Stan Getz Dynasty show his later
> style.  He played very different than his early years.  He doesn't
> sound anything like Raney at that point.
>
> On this video, starting at around 1:50 he definitely shows some Grant
> Green influence.  This is from the late 60s.
>
> http://youtu.be/QA0phKL1djQ

Just wanted to say that i really like this quite a bit (the tune and
its performance) ,and it sounds fresh to me today, here in 2012. Have
not heard nearly enough Thomas, any suggestions from the period of his
playing?

[Tim McNamara]

In article
<98cde2ca-fe08-4be3...@k6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

LOL!

I'd never get to play a solo...

[joel fass]

On Feb 27, 9:02 pm, Gerry <addr...@domain.com> wrote:
> On 2012-02-27 18:39:34 +0000, joel fass said:
> >
> I think people have varying levels of talent and of passion. My uncle
> and grandpa weren't lazy or untalented, but they had a limited amount
> of time to dispense to things like music, things like the guitar.  They
> weren't trying to copy anybody per se, just play, sing, learn new songs
> and entertain people.
>

That's all I'm trying to do. The problem starts when you're doing it
long enough and are good enough get paid. Then good f'ing luck. I only
wish music wasn't such a passion and I could keep it as a hobby like
most guys on this site. I even want to help people with music. I think
I do, too---at least I improve their mood and make them smile a bit.
I'm glad, but I can't eat smiles.

I should have listened to my mother-------and become a child molester
(insert rolling eyes emoticon here).

[Graham]

On Feb 28, 12:48 pm, danstearns <daniel_anthony_stea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Just wanted to say that i really like this quite a bit (the tune and
> its performance) ,and it sounds fresh to me today, here in 2012. Have
> not heard nearly enough Thomas, any suggestions from the period of his
> playing?

If you like this performance (Theme for Manuel) then your best bet is
to get 'Dynasty' by Stan Getz, which has Rene playing this tune, and
has a similar vibe.

[Gerry]

On 2012-03-01 07:32:14 +0000, joel fass said:

> On Feb 27, 9:02 pm, Gerry <addr...@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-02-27 18:39:34 +0000, joel fass said:
>>>
>> I think people have varying levels of talent and of passion. My uncle
>> and grandpa weren't lazy or untalented, but they had a limited amount
>> of time to dispense to things like music, things like the guitar.  They
>> weren't trying to copy anybody per se, just play, sing, learn new songs
>> and entertain people.
>>
> That's all I'm trying to do. The problem starts when you're doing it
> long enough and are good enough get paid. Then good f'ing luck. I only
> wish music wasn't such a passion and I could keep it as a hobby like
> most guys on this site.

I guess I didn't state it quite directly enough: It was enough of a
passion to me that I was *compelled* to stop doing it for money.
That's not really a hobby, but that's how we define life in the US,
either you're paid or it's "a hobby".

I tried to explain that to a non-musician once. She said, if you love
it so much I can't understand why you don't want to do it for money. I
asked her if she enjoyed making love. Sure she said. So I responded:
I can't understand why you wouldn't want to do it for money… Sometimes
selling what you love isn't always the main point. Sometimes it's
unrelated. I never once sit down to the guitar and thing about money,
who will buy what I'm doing and how I can make it fit their needs. Not
that there's anything inherently wrong with that.

> I even want to help people with music. I think
> I do, too---at least I improve their mood and make them smile a bit.
> I'm glad, but I can't eat smiles.

That's a negative aspect. Another is that you have to do gigs playing
music you may not like if you want to make more money. Another is
playing with musicians you don't respect or for audiences that don't
care. I found that in order to get cool with that you have to start
not caring so much about it. Money helps teach one to not care about a
lot of things in this way.

Certainly there's nothing wrong with being paid to do what you really
want to do in music, but then "enough" money becomes the next pivot.
You might consider the music you do only worth X for an audience and
you'd like more than X. I know you're writing songs and feature
singing prominently in your performances, and that's certainly one way
to open up the market. But think of all the players that don't even
want even to do that, and how it limits their marketability.

[thomas]

On Mar 1, 10:04 am, Gerry <addr...@domain.com> wrote:
>
> I guess I didn't state it quite directly enough: It was enough of a
> passion to me that I was *compelled* to stop doing it for money.
> That's not really a hobby, but that's how we define life in the US,
> either you're paid or it's "a hobby".
>
> I tried to explain that to a non-musician once. She said, if you love
> it so much I can't understand why you don't want to do it for money.  I
> asked her if she enjoyed making love.  Sure she said.  So I responded:
> I can't understand why you wouldn't want to do it for money… Sometimes
> selling what you love isn't always the main point. Sometimes it's
> unrelated.  I never once sit down to the guitar and thing about money,
> who will buy what I'm doing and how I can make it fit their needs.  Not
> that there's anything inherently wrong with that.
>

> That's a negative aspect.  Another is that you have to do gigs playing
> music you may not like if you want to make more money.  Another is
> playing with musicians you don't respect or for audiences that don't
> care.  I found that in order to get cool with that you have to start
> not caring so much about it. Money helps teach one to not care about a
> lot of things in this way.

You state my feelings perfectly. I had to give up doing it for money
by age thirty. I'd met too many musicians who hated music--mostly
classical players, not jazz.

[danstearns]

On Mar 1, 9:51 am, Graham <graham...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 12:48 pm, danstearns <daniel_anthony_stea...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Just wanted to say that i really like this quite a bit (the tune and
> > its performance) ,and it sounds fresh to me today, here in 2012. Have

> > not heard nearly enoughThomas, any suggestions from the period of his

> > playing?
>
> If you like this performance (Theme for Manuel) then your best bet is
> to get 'Dynasty' by Stan Getz, which has Rene playing this tune, and
> has a similar vibe.

missed this earlier, thanks

[TD]

On Mar 1, 10:04 am, Gerry <addr...@domain.com> wrote:

Sure, it is appreciated concerning your somewhat psychological and
philosophical piece of abstract thinking concerning such a comparison
to the life of a non-hobbyist musician. The fact is, a dentist, for
example, is not practicing for the love without pay as vogue. Nor is a
doctor, lawyer, politician, construction worker, or shoe-shine boy as
a rule. I would also not bend so far as to parallel being a hooker
( or even compare such criteria to a biological function) with a
working musician, although at times some of us have drifted close to
that fine line. It is easy to talk about being a musician from the
comforts of a cushy non-musical profession and some of us "non-non
musicians" get at least a little annoyed with such talk, even though
we may not readily understand why. I am not singling you out
personally, of course. I am merely acknowledging what I happen to see
in print here. Being a full time, ass to the wind, roulette spinning
mother in any one-thing-dedication, *is no lark* and nothing to assume
one is entitled to sit on the same fence as, merely because they can
whittle up a little chord melody and/or blow a few convincing choruses
on Blue Bossa; and/or hire some name players as sidemen on a CD funded
by a non-musical gig. There is a dimension that can never be attained
without such "letting go" and application of sacrifice and 24/7 full
on attention. However, anyone can write whatever they want here. And
that is a fact, ain't it?

-TD

[Gerry]

> Sure, it is appreciated concerning your somewhat psychological and
> philosophical piece of abstract thinking concerning such a comparison
> to the life of a non-hobbyist musician.

I think almost every view (above) was centered on the concrete, not the
abstract. But satisfaction and frustration are psychological and
philosophical constructs, certainly.

> The fact is, a dentist, for example, is not practicing for the love
> without pay as vogue.

I doubt there are hobbist dentists that don't want to be encumbered
with the commercial aspects of the trade.

> Nor is a doctor, lawyer, politician, construction worker, or shoe-shine
> boy as a rule.

I have a hard time thinking of any of these activities as being an
avenue for a hobby, or practitioners as "amateurs". I did use to have a
running gag about being an amateur gynocologist, but that was a joke
after all.

If you were assured you'd never make another dime, directly or
indirectly, from playing the guitar, would you quit? Would you cut
back, say, 50 percent?

> I would also not bend so far as to parallel being a hooker ( or even
> compare such criteria to a biological function) with a working
> musician, although at times some of us have drifted close to that fine
> line.

Okay, I'll try again: My wife loves cooking and cooks some really
interesting dishes. When people suggest she should start a restaurant
she's quick to point out that she doesn't want to do it for money and
be compelled to do it in 8 hour shifts, deal with staff, purchasing,
marketing, etc. It's the *opposite* of work, what she's doing.

> It is easy to talk about being a musician from the comforts of a cushy
> non-musical profession and some of us "non-non musicians" get at least
> a little annoyed with such talk, even though we may not readily
> understand why.

It's easy to talk about anything at all, with or without a union card.
People everywhere have opinions on the things that matter in their life.

> I am not singling you out personally, of course. I am merely
> acknowledging what I happen to see in print here. Being a full time,
> ass to the wind, roulette spinning mother in any

> one-thing-dedication,*is no lark* and nothing to assume one is entitled

> to sit on the same fence as, merely because they can whittle up a
> little chord melody and/or blow a few convincing choruses on Blue
> Bossa; and/or hire some name players as sidemen on a CD funded by a
> non-musical gig.

Hmm. I'll parse that this way: "The profession is hard. The
difficulties are not the same as the difficulties of
non-professionals." I agree completely.

> There is a dimension that can never be attained without such "letting
> go" and application of sacrifice and 24/7 full on attention. However,
> anyone can write whatever they want here. And that is a fact, ain't it?

You and I prove it most every day.

[Steven Bornfeld]

You might be surprised. Certainly not as a rule, and I surely couldn't
afford to, but...they're out there.

Steve

[Graham]

On Mar 8, 9:38 pm, TD <tonydecap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is easy to talk about being a musician from the
> comforts of a cushy non-musical profession

The 'cushy job' is not very cushy nowadays.

[joel fass]

> (clearly in response to some Tristano detractors among the boppers).- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I have very mixed feelings about Lee and his playing. He's a brilliant
guy, but IMO he hurt his playing by over-thinking. His original stuff
was something his own and something great, but he seemed riddled with
self-doubt even then. I could hear him playing a chorus then losing
confidence and it's written in his face on a video with Art Farmer
where he (and Art, naturally) are playing wonderful stuff. He's
quoting Bird but sounding like Lee in a solo worth copping. But he
looks like he's in pain. Later on IMO he just chased bauble after
bauble musically and I think to his detriment. It's like chasing
Lorelei when you have a great wife at home. I especially find his
sound hard to take after how great it was originally. And that
hesitating and sort of (to my ears) not believing in what he started
to play----well in a way it's courageous b'c he really IS improvising,
not just playing what he knows. But I think it's good to have balance.

As far as that interview book, a few things: I agree with Lee that
Lester was the real pure improvisor in jazz. He always finds a bend in
the road---even later in life when he was supposed to be washed up---
and it's pretty amazing. I agree with most of his observations, but
again the over-thinking and over-analyzing is just to me neurotic.
Have a shot or a toke and fucking relax. It's gonna be OK. It's only
music. Also it was taxing to read a 400-plus page book---granted about
improvising---that never mentioned the listener even once (except in
an ancillary chat with Paul Bley who said 'FUCK the listener. He's
just along for the ride---or words to that effect). It's troubling b/c
as a jazz musician this kind of self-absorption---since the solo and
soloist became the 'main event' and egos got bigger can lead to some
boring music, and the belief that the audience is there for YOU is
wrongheaded to begin with. You're there for each other and they're
paying your salary---so respect them enough to at least want to reach
them and maybe even have your music have (choke) something to do with
their lives. Or they may never come back.

[TD]

Mr Joel is very elucidated today, hmmmm............

-TD

[joel fass]

Hah. That book kinda rubbed me the wrong way when I read it. Let me
just end on a positive tip by saying Lee's older stuff was just sick
good. And he's still out here playing after BRAIN SURGERY! Pretty f
%^*ing amazing. Music heals.....

[Gerry]

On 2012-03-10 22:03:08 +0000, joel fass said:

> Hah. That book kinda rubbed me the wrong way when I read it. Let me
> just end on a positive tip by saying Lee's older stuff was just sick
> good. And he's still out here playing after BRAIN SURGERY! Pretty f
> %^*ing amazing. Music heals.....

I'm a respectful observer of the Lee Konitz canon. The front and the
back. Tastes differ of course; I occasionally shed my own, as well as
accrue a taste for something once disdained.

I like Konitz (among others such as Gerry Mulligan) the way I do John
Cassavettes movies: Some are failures. But frankly I find them more
interesting than other people's successes.
--
If one plays good music, people don't listen and if one plays bad music
people don't talk. -- Oscar Wilde

[Steven Bornfeld]

On 3/10/2012 5:03 PM, joel fass wrote:
>
> Hah. That book kinda rubbed me the wrong way when I read it. Let me
> just end on a positive tip by saying Lee's older stuff was just sick
> good. And he's still out here playing after BRAIN SURGERY! Pretty f
> %^*ing amazing. Music heals.....

On a related note, you may want to look at this recent post on rmcg by
Andrew Schulman:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.classical.guitar/browse_thread/thread/b21c3c76d361b218#

Steve

[van]

On Mar 10, 6:29 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.classical.guitar/browse_thre...
>
> Steve

Amazing story, though. I've been disillusioned about the "healing
power of music" when it came to my father.
He used to listen to music for hours on end, and then he had a stroke,
and stopped entirely.
Strokes seem to be the hardest things to come back from...

[Bill Williams]

> On a related note, you may want to look at this recent post on rmcg by
> Andrew Schulman:
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.classical.guitar/browse_thread/thread/b21c3c76d361b218#

Thanks for pointing us to that, Steve - an inspiring account.

BW

[joel fass]

It's the sound I mostly can't get past. Ugly and bleating IMO---and a
shame b/c his sound before the '70s was a MF, just like everything
about his playing. Also the deliberation and doubt. Play something,
man! Commit to something. There's paying customers out there....I'll
just stick with the Lee I dig, and there's plenty. He made his bones
long ago and is one of the few originals and a true improvisor.

[pmfan57]

I agree that he doesn't sound good over the last few years. I only
really think about his old stuff. He has some nice things on
Milestone label, like Spirits. And of course his 50s stuff is pretty
cool too.