-
Limited? Yes, I suppose so. You say limited as if it's a bad thing.
Originally Posted by goldenwave77
We all have limits. Sometimes we choose to work within self imposed limitations, or sometimes limitations occur because we are just... limited. I often think that musicians have such a focus on developing their musical craft they overlook the validity of the second case.
Quite often music written by hugely accomplished musicians who I love as sidemen is hopelessly self-indulgent to my ears because of this lack of limitation, unless they have spent some real time investigating the craft of composition, much of which is concerned with imposing limitations on purpose.
Another way of looking at it - was Magritte a worse artist because he couldn't paint as well as Dali? (actually TBH he could barely paint, while Dali had the chops of an old master) In general AFAIK, the critical consensus is Magritte was a better artist.
The interesting tensions of working within strict limits might be one reason why I prefer the compositions early Ellington - working within the constraints of the time, the dance orchestra beat, '78 recordings and so on - to those of later Ellington (the Sacred Concert etc.)
Charlie Christian - very limited in some ways. One of my favourite guitar players ever.
In any case, JB's main contribution (to my mind) is the way he led a band, and his conception of how the band should operate as a unit.
Fantastically influential, of course, on certain types jazz as well as popular music.Last edited by christianm77; 05-05-2016 at 10:27 AM.
-
05-05-2016 10:20 AM
-
[QUOTE=Groyniad;647687]g77 is spot on - OF COURSE - about the role played by LA. he made jazz by making it a soloist's art and he did that simply by being an utterly compelling soloist.
what is it to be an utterly compelling soloist?
its to project a certain personality or persona or style in your playing (with your playing - through your playing - by playing)
a personality etc. that is - if not likeable - then certainly engaging or interesting or enjoyable. so 2 parts: the personality has to come across clearly - and it has to be at least engaging if not likeable.
There are some really good observations here.
I would disagree that Sinatra is "swell"...maybe he "is a swell"---a braggart and pseudo-tough guy who had crime hood-friends beat up people who either challenged him, or stood up to him. (In WW II, he was probably THE most unpopular figure among U.S. serviceman, kind of a "negative pinup" figure. After the War, he reinvented his persona.) He is undeniably a great vocal stylist, and someone who worked hard at his craft, so you can respect this, but he was not a nice guy.
Personality--the element of persona-- among performers is more widespread with mass media, but was still present in earlier times. Pagannini was an 18th cent. (?) "rock star", and Lizst was a 19th century matinee idol. (A recent movie cast a rock star as Lizst, which is actually perceptive.) Lillie Langtry, Jenny Lind, Sarah Bernhardt, and Padereski, among others had their adoring crowds.
Jim Hall---great player, but I kind of think of him as a dentist or accountant who plays great music. Not really a strong personality.
Finally, it's possible to like an artist, as artist, without liking them as a human being. For me, Miles Davis, is an A artist but a D- human being. Michael Jordan, is an A+ artist/competitor/athlete but a C- human being. (Dizzy G. is an A/A + artist and probably an A individual as well: He has always been himself, seems to help other players, has expanded and brought new styles into the jazz world, and has always had integrity, and seems to have "done the right thing.")
And yes, an artist who "engages" us can be popular, and one who does not, probably will not be. Loads of jazz players in the late 50's adopted the button-downed, Brooks Brothery style that Miles D. had, and a lot of them were great, great players, e.g. Lee Morgan and Freddie Hubbard esp., but neither of them had the media savvy and sense of "presentation" that Miles had, in spades. So they couldn't pull it off, really. Wynton has a bit of this, in that his swagger makes him recognizable as a persona that we either like, or dislike, but who at least intrigues us...arguably.
-
For me the Golden era of popular culture is the 1980s. :-) Originally Posted by princeplanet
All cultures throughout history abound in "Golden Eras" or the "Belle Epoch". But you can't objectively quantify when these eras start and end, simply because such things are always open to subjective review. When was the golden age in architecture? Movies? Cars? Fashion? Rock'n'Roll? Jazz?....
My nephew was doing a paper at school and asked me for advice : "When did Rock'n'roll die?" Huh? It's dead?? According to the University text he was studying from it was. But go to your newsagent and you'll see more magazines about contemporary Rock/Indie Rock than there were in the 70's. So which perspective is correct? Well, the one that you choose to view it from, of course!
Personally, a Golden Era to me is one that is so dense in terms of stellar output, that every year (or even month) within that period is associated with certain defining releases. So if we consider 1956 to 1966, we can mentally go through each year in our minds and we think of all the great Jazz albums that come from each year that WE ALL KNOW!.
Now lets consider say, 1986 through to 1996. Go through each year in your mind and think of the era defining Jazz albums that come out in each year. If only 10% of you can think of 10 outstanding albums per year from that period, then that adds weight in favour of the OP's premise. Collusion of subjectivity becomes a kind of "Objectivity", or something...
But going back to '56 to '66, you can do the same for Pop Music, Fashion, cars, movies etc, so Jazz was certainly not the only thing that stuck in our minds. So cultural significance does not equate with popularity, Jazz fell off the music charts in the 60's, yet we still hold that era close to our hearts because they continue to resonate. Heck, Shelley or Modigliani were ignored in their day, but they continue to resonate for so many of us we deem them to have enduring cultural significance.
So it's not a question of whether Chris Potter is "as good" or an equal "genius" compared to say Coltrane or Parker, he may even be a measurably better artist in many respects (how do you judge that?). No, it's gotta be about: does he, or will he resonate with a great number of people in an enduring way. In 2066, how will 1976 to 2016 be viewed? Right now you'd probably bet that the greats from 1926 to 1966 will be listened to more than the latter era, but contemporary juries have been wrong before. Have you read many Coltrane reviews from the late 50's?
Anyway, that's an interesting point re: Coltrane. A lot of critics were hostile to him. Even Miles seemed quite ambivalent about him (though I'm sure he wouldn't have hired him if he didn't dig him really haha). He didn't sound like the sax players before.
However, young musicians dug him, and not just jazzers.
Coltrane's modal period was tremendously influential on the rock/counter culture thing. While Trane was probably not the whole reason for it, he was certainly influential on bands like the Doors and the Byrds and moving popular music away from the conventional harmony thing towards modal vamps and so on, along with the interest in Indian music and folk music.
So - we could argue that Trane was an important factor in the move away from the kind of functional harmonic songwriting that gave jazz musicians the Great American Songbook ;-)
Was Jimi influenced by Trane? It wouldn't surprise me, and I'm sure someone has a quote somewhere.
Elvin's drumming was a direct influence on rock drumming via Ginger Baker and John Bonham etc.
Trane was also a direct influence on Steve Reich, and Reich's influence is felt everywhere - from contemporary classical (his nominal home) to art-rock and contemporary jazz.
Much of this started happening while Trane was still alive.Last edited by christianm77; 05-05-2016 at 10:46 AM.
-
05-05-2016, 10:46 AM #29dortmundjazzguitar Guestsignificance for what? the given style? music in general? society? culture? which culture? what significance did monk#s music have outside the given style? a quincy jones-produced michael jackson certainly had a tremendous impact on the culture in china, charlie parker, not so much. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
[QUOTE=goldenwave77;647708]
Originally Posted by Groyniad
so we're talking past each other here a bit
i'm talking exclusively about the personality that comes across in their music - this may or may not be their actual personality - i have no interest in the question of whether it is or not. so its not their actual personality i'm talking about but the one that appears in the music.
-
i didn't really spell out the significance of my observations about the role that projecting a certain character or persona plays in the music.
the point is - billie holiday and lester young and charlie parker and sonny rollins etc. obviously express recognizeable everyday personality traits in their performances. they all have a certain what you might call 'humanity' about them.
i think that post coltrane (whose persona ended up being that of a sort of mystical saviour-type thing - so not 'human' in the ordinary sense of that term) its rather hard to feel recognizeable everyday character coming across in a lot of jazz playing.
the virtuosity and technicality of it all tends to inhibit the whole process of personality-projection. either that or there's a lot of kind of super-serious-heavy-weight kind of personalities being projected the whole time.
-
[QUOTE=christianm77;647698]Limited? [RE: James Brown] Yes, I suppose so. You say limited as if it's a bad thing.
The interesting tensions of working within strict limits might be one reason why I prefer the compositions early Ellington - working within the constraints of the time, the dance orchestra beat, '78 recordings and so on - to those of later Ellington (the Sacred Concert etc.)
Me, too. Much rather listen to the pre-1953 3 minute cuts than later more ponderous, extended compositions. More music in 3 minutes than in entire sides of less distinguished bands. The longer pieces just don't carry their weight...I'll listen to them once and put them away.
As far as James Brown...how much influence/input did he really have...I'm asking, I don't know. Did he write the songs....do the arrangements...or was it Maceo ___________(?), the horn player?. A lot of James B. just sounds like extended vamps to me...its ok to listen to.
I like Muddy Waters, too. His stuff had undeniable power, but it would have been better if he had a bigger toolbox to work with.
Better or worse...is a concept I don't find ....useful. I prefer interesting or not....to me artists or performers whose work bears repeated listening...have more to them...than those who do not.Last edited by goldenwave77; 05-05-2016 at 11:37 AM.
-
i'm talking exclusively about the personality that comes across in their music - this may or may not be their actual personality - i have no interest in the question of whether it is or not. so its not their actual personality i'm talking about but the one that appears in the music.[/QUOTE]
You're right, I think I read your post too quickly.
I understand what you say esp. about Rollins, whose playing does have that playfulness and mimicry, and turning a phrase over and over, and around and around.
Billie H.---I hear her sliding around vocal phrases...but knowing what I know of her persona...I have a hard time hearing innocence in her music...maybe her really early stuff.
I do agree that all great soloists have a unique voice.
I have this conversation with a golf buddy of mine who plays classical guitar. He doesn't know much about jazz, but just last night we were talking trumpet players and I was saying listen to Lee Morgan, Dizzy, Clifford B., Miles D., Freddie H., Louis A, or Dexter Gordon, Sonny Rollins, Bird, Gene Ammons, and I said even if they played the same song (let's say, Autumn Leaves) within 8 bars (or less), you'd be able to tell who it was.
And to turn it back to the original question---are newer generation players less individual, than older players? I am not sure what the answer is....if all music school grads are playing Lydian Dominant (or whatever) over altered dominants, will they sound more different, or less?! Not sure....actually...maybe the old days of stealing licks was not any better in truth. As Mingus said "If Charlie Parker were a Gunslinger, they'd be a whole lotta dead copycats."Last edited by goldenwave77; 05-05-2016 at 11:36 AM.
-
Maybe in general, music- either jazz, or rock/blues- doesn't play the same role anymore. It doesn't affect or change the societies, lives anymore. I don't see the way I saw it in the 80's and 90's, and can imagine the earlier decades. Basically, nothing is happening, no cultural revolutions. Jazz is just a part of that stagnant situation.
-
Yeah, this is a good point that I'm glad you've underlined. I've often said that Jazz needs a new outspoken Champion to get back on the charts (not that I think it needs to or even wants to..). There is no Ali, no Miles, not even a Kanye in Jazz to draw attention to it. A bit of "attitude" could make it interesting, or even relevant to a youth culture far removed from it. Originally Posted by Groyniad
When the Miles movie hits the streets, we'll all be reminded of this- that there are no personalities in Jazz today. Wynton was the last outspoken figure, and he did some good at the cost of a lot of derision from the Jazz Establishment. Maybe that's why no one since has dared to rock the boat. The colourful iconoclasts all defected to HipHop decades ago...
All the Jazz greats from the Golden era had jumbo sized personas, Louis, Lester, Bird, Miles, Mingus, Jackie Mac and hundreds of others, all of them larger than life, and yet tangibly, we still feel like we know them.
Today's Jazz heavyweights have the demeanour of Classical musicians, ironically, given that they were the very antithesis of the Jazz culture that started every youth subculture ever since. How would Prez describe the scene today?
"Squaresville"????
-
Well, for one thing. Monk didn't write THAT many tunes--about 75 I think. BUT some of his compositions are amongst the most performed of any in the jazz repertoire. To be tangible, the Thelonius Monk Foundation is at least partially funded from them, I think. Originally Posted by dortmundjazzguitar
When I went to a recent clip of the 2016 White House jazz show, I learned this was this year's UNESCO flagship presentation for World jazz day....and that there were concerts all around the world connected with it. There was also a prominent link to the Thelonius Monk Foundation, which also sponsors the annual instrument contests.
Maybe it's too early to write off jazz, and if so, maybe Thelonius will be given some of the credit for it.
-
Originally Posted by destinytot
my point was just that its like a motif - or a tune-fragmant - rather than a tune - and it just gets repeated and repeated
contrast with e.g. blue skies or paper moon which are wonderfully simple full tunes
and of course lots and lots of things that aren't very good are hugely popular (and vice versa) - i'm not a relativist about these things
shakespeare is more 'relevant' today than e.g. neighbors or dallas etc. despite being hugely unpopular and very very old.
-
I think the thing is jazz progressed so quickly...jazz was moving on before folks were done with the presvious incarnation of the idiom.
Now, for the last 40 years or so, we've been sorting that out, and finding all the cool stuff that can still be said on forms that are 50 years old...or more...
-
Originally Posted by princeplanet
Yeah, this is a good point that I'm glad you've underlined. I've often said that Jazz needs a new outspoken Champion to get back on the charts (not that I think it needs to or even wants to..). There is no Ali, no Miles, not even a Kanye in Jazz to draw attention to it. A bit of "attitude" could make it interesting, or even relevant to a youth culture far removed from it.
When the Miles movie hits the streets, we'll all be reminded of this- that there are no personalities in Jazz today. Wynton was the last outspoken figure, and he did some good at the cost of a lot of derision from the Jazz Establishment. Maybe that's why no one since has dared to rock the boat. The colourful iconoclasts all defected to HipHop decades ago...
All the Jazz greats from the Golden era had jumbo sized personas, Louis, Lester, Bird, Miles, Mingus, Jackie Mac and hundreds of others, all of them larger than life, and yet tangibly, we still feel like we know them.
Today's Jazz heavyweights have the demeanour of Classical musicians, ironically, given that they were the very antithesis of the Jazz culture that started every youth subculture ever since. How would Prez describe the scene today?
"Squaresville"????
great - exactly what i was saying.
'monstrous' playing is so dead and flat from a personality perspective. coltrane's fault i think - in the end.
-
But we still "feel" Trane's persona, in his music, his photos, his story. His personality may have been shy and timid, but his persona remains more "monstrous" than all of the tenor monsters since, combined... Originally Posted by Groyniad
-
great point, jeff. How long was the classical music period? romantic, impressionist etc...I think like 50 years a pop? How long was the swing era? bebop, cool etc...10? Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
Been saying the same thing for years, I mean if you just take the period known as early Post Bop, I dunno, say between '62 and '65, such a fertile vista was opened up that could have been explored for 50 years. Instead, under the weight of the "60's giant cultural steam roller", it acquiesced and (much too) quickly morphed into other forms (avant gard, fusion, free etc). But you go into a place like Small's any week night and you'll hear music that sounds much closer to Speak No Evil than Bitches Brew (which ironically helped make acoustic post bop officially redundant...). Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
Just like we get the Governments we deserve, we get the Culture we deserve, except "voting" for our culture is far more democratic, especially when we can decide to vote back in cultures that were declared dead 50 years ago...
-
Originally Posted by joe2758
Very good point. Like modern art: Fauvism; Cubism; Constructivism; de Stilj; Futurism; Dada; Installed Works; Surrealism; Blue Period; Rose Period; Abstract Expressionism; Op Art; Pop Art---all within 50 years.
-
OK, let me put it this way, what jazz musicians around today do you think are as great as Charlie Parker? In whatever way that 'great' is understood by you. Gut feeling. Originally Posted by dortmundjazzguitar
I'm not asking this for the sake of argument. I'm not sure I'm able to answer this myself.
-
[QUOTE=goldenwave77;647720]
As I understand it JB drilled and formed the band. But I might be wrong here - anyone? Originally Posted by christianm77
I don't feel that way about the blues guys. I don't honestly feel their music would have been improved with more 'tools.' It was perfect for what it is. Quite a few blues players had a larger... err... toolbox, but kept things simple for the gig. BB King springs to mind right away.
-
I think you are right. The copycats are quickly forgotten. IMO there are players around today with a very distinct voice. Originally Posted by goldenwave77
-
Originally Posted by princeplanet
this is quite a delicate point in a way but a good one i think
my point about all the greats is that they projected personalities in their playing that you could 'relate to' as the saying goes
i claimed parker presented a personality that was at once angelic (very unusual) and mischievous (common) - and that is hardly easy to relate to - but its human in some deep sense (not just angelic - but naughty and angelic at the same time...)
but coltrane seems to me to project a sort of non-human persona - he was certainly treated like a kind of religious prophet or savior even - but the point is a point about the feel of his music. it feels much more 'spiritual' than 'humanistic' - kind of elevated and super-intense with a sort of sombre over-tone. so no sense of human frailty - of humor - or even of romance or loss etc.
i think that sets a pattern that many many have followed. and i also think there's something very boring about that type of persona - its TOO serious and sombre and it seems too little concerned with our ordinary lives. its like you have to go into a kind of spiritual trance to appreciate it - and that's not my vibe at all.
so the point is - it doesn't much matter how you evoke such a personality - if you do and that's all you do you'll just end up feeling pompous and boring and worthy and predictable etc. etc. super serious intellectual is not much better than super serious spiritual - i dislike both.
-
05-05-2016, 01:18 PM #48dortmundjazzguitar Guestmust it be charlie parker? in his case, none. but then none of his contemporaries were as great. he was a singularity imo. Originally Posted by christianm77
i'll be willing to equal tatum with jarrett though. or even CC to metheny (who clearly had an enormous impact on the following generation of guitarists, for better or worse.)
if large groups of musicians start to sound the same, the originator must have had quite an impact. in that sense metheny, brecker, scofield, even mehldau and bernstein, definitely benson, are stylists with an impact probably comparable to the stylists of former generations like brown, rollins, mccoy, henderson.
-
I think you are making really interesting points here.... Originally Posted by Groyniad
I don't think anyone has actually been able to follow Coltrane. No one else IMO is remotely like him.
Certainly not Mike Brecker, Kenny Garret or any of those guys. They might have transcribed Trane's solos, but his spirit was unique.
Anyway, you are right to say there is something very elevated, kind of cosmic about Trane. Sometimes to my ears his playing takes on the aspect of the entire human race, which is remarkable really.
-
on the view i've offered here what makes a player great is just
1 - that they project a given personality really really clearly
2 that the personality they project is somehow particularly likeable or lovable or otherwise engaging (but i've tried to say that it has to be engaging in a kind of immediate or everyday way not engaging in a super-intellectual or super-spiritual way)
i think it has to be both deep and likeable actually (the projected personality). it is important that e.g. billie holiday does not come across in her singing as anybody's for the time of day or that sinatra in his does not come across as a heel or a hard-ass. the person you feel like you're meeting in the music has to be someone you really want to meet and would like to get to know.
(for me the best example is dean martin. i cannot abide four bars of dean martin under any circumstances - because i can't stand to have to cope with someone who is such an out and out phoney - in his case a phoney boozy charmer. (yes i'm saying the phoney boozy charmer persona he projects feels phoney - badly presented - hammed up. oh god i can't stand it. it doesn't matter at all that he probably was in fact a phoney boozy charmer - the way he presents that in his singing is the thing - and that's cringe-worthy)
they have to engage you
on this type of view it matters less that LA came first than that he projected more clearly than anyone (no doubt about that i think) and that the personality he projected was so upliftingly positive
but i'm more drawn to evans and parker and powell because they show more signs of strain, of having been caught up in the familiar difficulties of life
we never talk about this sort of stuff - but it is just so dominant in our experience of the music. if you decide you want to put evans on rather than rollins or bh rather than fs you're deciding between an encounter with one kind of person rather than another.
(take the first 8 of evans' come rain or come shine on portrait in jazz and compare to the first 8 of rollins you don't know what love is on colossus.)
and this is all about soloists and singers - what they choose to play and the way they choose to play it. i don't think a band does this - its a soloist that does it.
Reply With Quote
dearmond 1100 reissue vs original which one is...
Today, 03:30 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos