Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Posts 51 to 100 of 128
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    ^ hard to beat stanwyck!!! her pre-code stuff!!

    one of the greats!! krupa is icing

    cheers

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    Inspired by the "Corn" thread, I was picking up a vibe from some that a lot of Swing music is corny. I myself used to think Benny Goodman was as nerdy and as square as they come. But after many years of listening to Charlie Christian, you begin to appreciate how hip a lot of Benny's lines actually are, well, at least I think so...

    What about you guys? Anyone with me? Kinda makes you contemplate what constitutes "hip". If you put a gun to the head of many modern "hip" players, could they play those cool, slippery, supple, language soaked yet still unpredictable lines that make you tap your foot, smile as well as make you go "Wow!"... Hmmm, for ages now we're supposed to think that "modern" means more hip. But for me, I'm not feeling that at all... I mean, sure Chris Potter makes me go Wow, but not the kind of "Fuck Yeah" kind of Wow I get from the top cats from the 40's, 50's and 60's. Heck, even Louis Armstrong to me sounds more "hip" than many if not most, if not all, of the current guys.

    So yeah, back to Benny and the other Sultans of Swing from the bygone era, forget some of the cheesy tunes and the arrangements, try transcribing those solos and you'll come to realise you could never have come up with ways to get from one chord to another like they did. Beautiful, perfectly shaped story telling steeped in the old language tradition (Benny, Lester, Andre Ekyan, Don Byas etc etc ) that makes much of the modern post Coltrane / Shorter pattern or CST based soloing kinda dull in comparison, and, dare I say, kinda unhip ... Well, to me at least anyway... Strange how I've gradually come to this realisation, especially considering I once considered any kind of Jazz from the 70's was way cooler than every decade that preceded it put together!
    I moved to the SF Bay Area in 72. The SF Chronicle was the big newspaper and everybody read it. The most popular columnist was Herb Caen, a candidate for Mr. San Fransciso.

    He would write occasionally about his love affair with the Benny Goodman bands of the late 30's. And this was in the mid 70's. He was born in 1916, so he was writing about music he heard live around age 23. Iirc, he would rate the different editions of the band, by year, and talk about which edition was the best. How many bands/leaders do fans talk that way about?

    It made quite an impression on him. To hear him tell it, the groove was the deepest he ever heard and the music was the hippest, to his way of thinking.

    Not everybody uses the audience response as a measure of "hipness". If they did, Kenny G might get better press in the jazz community. But, my impression is that it was profound at the time and represented a sea change from the music just 10 years before.

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Marinero
    Benny G. and his sidemen were consummate musicians. And, unlike later "Jazz," he played dance music to a generation of listeners/dancers. To compare him to later styles/musicians is an apple/orange discussion. These musicians laid the foundation for all forms of Jazz to evolve to what we have today. And, as a side-note, IMO, Jazz lost its popularity when people could no longer dance to the music. It became cerebral, not visceral. Can you imagine dancing to "Giant Steps?????"
    Play live! . . . Marinero
    But who danced to jazz in the 60’s? Even hippies tripping on acid knew to sit their ass down. The music evolved then, and has never stopped evolving. There’s no stopping evolution. If you’re trying to take a snapshot of time I’ve no argument with that. But the music is alive and its evolution was for the better if you ask me. It’s unfair to jazz to say jazz lost its audience when they stopped creating dance music. The music was never made to be music of the masses. Besides rock and roll happened. You’re going to stop R and R too?

    Who can imagine life without bebop and all of the players it later produced? Or the birth of the cool, or the great Miles Davis Quintets, and on and on and on.

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jameslovestal
    With regards to what is corny: The 1941 film Ball of Fire has a scene where corny is defined. I couldn't find that scene but I did find this opening scene from the film with Gene Kuppa.

    Krupa. . . related by marriage. Play live! . . . Marinero

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
    What is hip?
    This is hip!

    Yes, it is! How do you define hip? You don''t. You know it when you hear/see it. Similar to Supreme Court Justice William Douglas about pornograpphy: "I know it when I see it."

  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
    But who danced to jazz in the 60’s? Even hippies tripping on acid knew to sit their ass down. The music evolved then, and has never stopped evolving. There’s no stopping evolution. If you’re trying to take a snapshot of time I’ve no argument with that. But the music is alive and its evolution was for the better if you ask me. It’s unfair to jazz to say jazz lost its audience when they stopped creating dance music. The music was never made to be music of the masses. Besides rock and roll happened. You’re going to stop R and R too?

    Who can imagine life without bebop and all of the players it later produced? Or the birth of the cool, or the great Miles Davis Quintets, and on and on and on.
    I agree, music, like life, evolves. Whether it is automatically for better is dubious, I think. History says otherwise. You say it's unfair to say jazz lost its audience when they stopped creating dance music. It's not unfair, it happened. Because, as you say, music evolves. The-post-dance jazz era was fabulous for a while--50s, 60s. Then the decline began and accelerated. Music evolves, for better or worse.

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
    But who danced to jazz in the 60’s? Even hippies tripping on acid knew to sit their ass down. The music evolved then, and has never stopped evolving. There’s no stopping evolution. If you’re trying to take a snapshot of time I’ve no argument with that. But the music is alive and its evolution was for the better if you ask me. It’s unfair to jazz to say jazz lost its audience when they stopped creating dance music. The music was never made to be music of the masses. Besides rock and roll happened. You’re going to stop R and R too?

    Who can imagine life without bebop and all of the players it later produced? Or the birth of the cool, or the great Miles Davis Quintets, and on and on and on.
    goin deep 2b...nice

    cheers

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    Evolution != improvement. Evolution is just change, for better or for worse. That applies to biology, music, and innumerable other things.

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    Oh I dunno, people regularly dance on our gigs.....well, danced.

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
    But who danced to jazz in the 60’s? Even hippies tripping on acid knew to sit their ass down. The music evolved then, and has never stopped evolving. There’s no stopping evolution. If you’re trying to take a snapshot of time I’ve no argument with that. But the music is alive and its evolution was for the better if you ask me. It’s unfair to jazz to say jazz lost its audience when they stopped creating dance music. The music was never made to be music of the masses. Besides rock and roll happened. You’re going to stop R and R too?

    Who can imagine life without bebop and all of the players it later produced? Or the birth of the cool, or the great Miles Davis Quintets, and on and on and on.
    I agree except for the caveat that not all evolution leads to a species' success. There are mutations that end-stop certain life-forms that become extinct. In biological evolution adaptive mutations are "rewarded" by reproductive success, maladaptive mutations lead to extinction.

    Music is not exactly the same, of course, because humans have memory, an instinct to preserve that which is endangered, and a desire to change without loss. Still, evolution is neither good nor bad, it just is.

  12. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by lawson-stone
    ...... evolution is neither good nor bad, it just is.
    True. De-evolution, on the other hand...

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    I think Benny was probably quite hip at the time. Maybe a bit old-fashioned for that now.

  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    I don't think Benny was ever hip. Hipper than Glenn Miller perhaps. (no diss intended.)

    But - he did serve an incredibly important function culturally, which was running one of the first integrated bands and presenting black talent - such as Charlie (and Teddy, Lionel and so on) - to a white audience.

    There is a general feeling in the histories (I don't know how accurate they are, but this seems to be the vibe) that the music of Minton's playhouse was away from that commercial setting a chance for those musicians to really play... So that was the real hip thing and became bop a few years down the line... But I still find the Benny small band sides to be fresh sounding and compelling. I think you have to give Benny some credit for that.

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
    But who danced to jazz in the 60’s? Even hippies tripping on acid knew to sit their ass down. The music evolved then, and has never stopped evolving. There’s no stopping evolution. If you’re trying to take a snapshot of time I’ve no argument with that. But the music is alive and its evolution was for the better if you ask me. It’s unfair to jazz to say jazz lost its audience when they stopped creating dance music. The music was never made to be music of the masses. Besides rock and roll happened. You’re going to stop R and R too?

    Who can imagine life without bebop and all of the players it later produced? Or the birth of the cool, or the great Miles Davis Quintets, and on and on and on.
    Haha, Barry Harris said once - 'the worst thing that ever happened to jazz is it went out of the dance halls, the dancers kept the musicians honest.'

    Which is funny because I've spent a lot of time around dancers who think bebop was the apocalypse. They were all hanging out with Norma Miller...

    Dance roots were present in jazz even as the music moved towards being more a club thing. I think there was some dancing in the black clubs maybe with organ bands (have to ask Dave Stryker or someone?), Coltrane played R'n'B, Wayne played dances with Miles.

    They all played dance gigs. That's why they could swing. The feel is still there. Listen to this tempo:


    That's a dance tempo.

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    I grew up taking this kind of "corn' for granted and waiting for something I liked to come 'round on the AM radio.

    I can appreciate it a little more now, especially in the context of Scorcese's masterful use.

    Percy Faith outfit, 'Delicado.'


  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    now this is hip dance music

    the great slim n slam start things off



    cheers

  18. #67

    User Info Menu

    ps- notice that the great slim gaillard starts with piano...he plays opening chords with his hands upside down!!! (that was a gimmick of his!!) then he picks up guitar!!! and sings!!..slam stewart played with tatum trio..prob one of the greatest bands ever...his specialty was playin arco and vocalizing an octave above..a master...(he's in that classic charlie christian-teddy bunn 1939 gibson promo shot!)

    anyway i love that hellzapoppin clip!

    cheers

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    I don't think Benny was ever hip. Hipper than Glenn Miller perhaps. (no diss intended.)

    But - he did serve an incredibly important function culturally, which was running one of the first integrated bands and presenting black talent - such as Charlie (and Teddy, Lionel and so on) - to a white audience.

    There is a general feeling in the histories (I don't know how accurate they are, but this seems to be the vibe) that the music of Minton's playhouse was away from that commercial setting a chance for those musicians to really play... So that was the real hip thing and became bop a few years down the line... But I still find the Benny small band sides to be fresh sounding and compelling. I think you have to give Benny some credit for that.

    Hi, C,
    Sixty-three years as a musician, Big Band leader, Swing Jazz innovator and mentor to generations of musicians and his "incredibly important function" was integrated bands? He was a major mover and shaker in promoting Jazz music to the world, as it was generally played during his era, and provided a solid, creative platform where many musicians "cut their teeth" before they moved on to their own successful careers. Music and musicians should be judged aesthetically, pure and simply . . . not for their Sociological ramifications to future generations . . .the tawdry and tainted meat and potatoes of the University crowd. Play live! . . . Marinero

  20. #69

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Marinero
    Hi, C,
    Sixty-three years as a musician, Big Band leader, Swing Jazz innovator and mentor to generations of musicians and his "incredibly important function" was integrated bands? He was a major mover and shaker in promoting Jazz music to the world, as it was generally played during his era, and provided a solid, creative platform where many musicians "cut their teeth" before they moved on to their own successful careers. Music and musicians should be judged aesthetically, pure and simply . . . not for their Sociological ramifications to future generations . . .the tawdry and tainted meat and potatoes of the University crowd. Play live! . . . Marinero
    Yes it was an incredibly important thing for the time. And it showed how important the music was to Benny.

    I have a lot of respect for the dude. I’m sorry if you feel offended by some of the important things he did.

  21. #70

    User Info Menu

    Plus my favourite Benny stuff is definitely the small band stuff. It is his most original stuff I think... (and his later small bands were great too, but obviously not quite as hip for the time.)

    The other stuff is great, but I tend to turn to Fletcher, Chick Webb, Lunceford and early Basie for classic pre war orchestra stuff... Benny obviously took a lot from those musicians; but of course he was more famous and you got to credit him with some of the most iconic moments in big band music. And always badass playing.
    Last edited by christianm77; 08-04-2020 at 12:40 PM.

  22. #71

    User Info Menu

    Also, there’s this:


  23. #72

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Haha, Barry Harris said once - 'the worst thing that ever happened to jazz is it went out of the dance halls, the dancers kept the musicians honest.'

    Which is funny because I've spent a lot of time around dancers who think bebop was the apocalypse. They were all hanging out with Norma Miller...

    Dance roots were present in jazz even as the music moved towards being more a club thing. I think there was some dancing in the black clubs maybe with organ bands (have to ask Dave Stryker or someone?), Coltrane played R'n'B, Wayne played dances with Miles.

    They all played dance gigs. That's why they could swing. The feel is still there. Listen to this tempo:

    That's a dance tempo.
    Who has Barry Harris been instructing? Oh that’s right, students, who didn’t dance to their music. Why was that? Because the music had moved on.

    Coltrane as a kid played RnB. A man grows up and puts away childish things. Coltrane advanced the music forward and we’re all the better for it.

    The period between’55 and’68, when Wes died was nothing less than remarkable in moving the music forward.

    Who could foresee fusion? Not your taste? Mine either, but fact is the music moved on in the 80’s to so many young lions who put their imprint on the music.

    Where are we today? Who knows, I’m still stuck in that soundtrack between 1950-1968. There’s enough there to spend a lifetime and still not discover it all.

    Apocalyptic? What no Dexter Gordon love? I’d say your loss.

    You want to spend your time dancing to Benny Goodman? No problem, no one is stopping you.

  24. #73

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Yes it was an incredibly important thing for the time. And it showed how important the music was to Benny.

    I have a lot of respect for the dude. I’m sorry if you feel offended by some of the important things he did.
    Hi, C,
    "Art for Art's Sake" . . . everything else is chaff. Play live! . . . Marinero

  25. #74

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
    Who has Barry Harris been instructing? Oh that’s right, students, who didn’t dance to their music. Why was that? Because the music had moved on.
    Barry Harris has NOT moved on lol. But I think there’s a wider point here.

    Coltrane as a kid played RnB. A man grows up and puts away childish things. Coltrane advanced the music forward and we’re all the better for it.
    OK that’s a really snobby stupid thing to say imo and also misunderstands the point I’m making; apprenticeship in dance bands gives you skills in non dance music.

    It doesn’t have to be swing or R&B; it could be Funk, Salsa or West African pop. But the music needs that rhythmic intensity, and the dancers demand that rhythmic intensity from musicians. Barry was talking about swing music and bebop (which Barry maintains was in fact danced to) but you can expand the basic point.

    Every jazz musician has done this pretty much. Just listen to the Brecker brothers for instance. You don’t learn to play like that doing background or polite club gigs.

    But it’s also a reason why the music moved to straight 8’s a bit as well; the dance roots of jazz changed. Which of course takes us into fusion.

    For my taste it is the dance roots of jazz that stop it from turning into mere prog rock (but without the pop hooks of a Yes, for instance.)

    The period between’55 and’68, when Wes died was nothing less than remarkable in moving the music forward.

    Who could foresee fusion? Not your taste? Mine either, but fact is the music moved on in the 80’s to so many young lions who put their imprint on the music.
    See above.

    Where are we today? Who knows, I’m still stuck in that soundtrack between 1950-1968. There’s enough there to spend a lifetime and still not discover it all.

    Apocalyptic? What no Dexter Gordon love? I’d say your loss.
    Yeah OK, first of all I’m not saying this; people I know say this. I’m not sure if you understood that.

    swing dancers are their own subculture which is a bit hipster and so on. They also buy a lot of narratives from people like Norma Miller who was on the scene until she died last year and hated bop.

    I love Dexter with all my heart and think he swings like a barn door, but few dancers dance to that stuff. (And needless to say Barry is on some of those classic cuts.) There’s reasons other than tempo and groove. The cuts tend to be too long for social dancing for instance.

    i have played some Nat Adderly stuff on dance gigs.

    You want to spend your time dancing to Benny Goodman? No problem, no one is stopping you.
    I’m not a swing dancer lol. Not sure if you understood my post.

    Bloody hell everyone seems up for an argument today.
    Last edited by christianm77; 08-04-2020 at 01:11 PM.

  26. #75

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Marinero
    Hi, C,
    "Art for Art's Sake" . . . everything else is chaff. Play live! . . . Marinero
    It is probably comforting to assert this.

    Reality is usually more complex.

    My own understanding of Aesthetics vs Social aspects is constantly in flux. With Benny I think the two things actually worked together. You don’t actually have to choose....

    (in fact Benny had to set a social precedent in order to get the musicians he wanted... which could be an example of the quest for beauty driving social change? Put that in your pipe and smoke it Regelski...)
    Last edited by christianm77; 08-04-2020 at 01:29 PM.

  27. #76

    User Info Menu

    And let me tell something to all of those who have an angst against bebop.

    Bebop developed in a time when talented black artists could not get a gig because of the color of their skin.

    That’s why bebop was created. One can’t separate from discussing race without even expressing the word “bebop.”

    These cats created a music that in its time couldn’t be played by the average musician. Think about that.

    Why would some musicians resort to creating a music that was untouchable by the masses?

    Why do you think that happened?

    Do you believe bebop was created as a middle finger to “dance music?”

    I believe the answer can’t be found without discussing the times.

    Heck, over ten years later, in the later 50’s Miles was hit over the head, bloodied, and arrested while standing outside his own gig smoking a cigarette.

    You don’t think these musicians weren’t angry during the creation of this music?

    Of course they were. And their music reflected their internal anger. These were hellish times to be a black artist in America.

    One can’t discuss bebop without having a greater discussion of our collective history.

    Bebop, should always be honored. It was a gift. And these cats who created it were musical giants.

  28. #77

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
    And let me tell something to all of those who have an angst against bebop.

    Bebop developed in a time when talented black artists could not get a gig because of the color of their skin.

    That’s why bebop was created. One can’t separate from discussing race without even expressing the word “bebop.”

    These cats created a music that in its time couldn’t be played by the average musician. Think about that.

    Why would some musicians resort to creating a music that was untouchable by the masses?

    Why do you think that happened?

    Do you believe bebop was created as a middle finger to “dance music?”

    I believe the answer can’t be found without discussing the times.

    Heck, over ten years later, in the later 50’s Miles was hit over the head, bloodied, and arrested while standing outside his own gig smoking a cigarette.

    You don’t think these musicians weren’t angry during the creation of this music?

    Of course they were. And their music reflected their internal anger. These were hellish times to be a black artist in America.

    One can’t discuss bebop without having a greater discussion of our collective history.

    Bebop, should always be honored. It was a gift. And these cats who created it were musical giants.
    I agree completely. People find it comforting to ignore these aspects. And in general, it is easy.

    (BTW ive never got the impression from the bop players themselves that bop was a ‘middle finger to dancers’; jazz ‘history’ is full of dodgy or simplified narratives that don’t line up. Ken Burns of course is a prime culprit.

    Some jazz writers are also very lazy at research to be brutally honest

    Anyway you can go to the source on this one PRX)

  29. #78

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
    And let me tell something to all of those who have an angst against bebop.

    Bebop developed in a time when talented black artists could not get a gig because of the color of their skin.

    That’s why bebop was created. One can’t separate from discussing race without even expressing the word “bebop.”

    These cats created a music that in its time couldn’t be played by the average musician. Think about that.

    Why would some musicians resort to creating a music that was untouchable by the masses?

    Why do you think that happened?

    Do you believe bebop was created as a middle finger to “dance music?”

    I believe the answer can’t be found without discussing the times.

    Heck, over ten years later, in the later 50’s Miles was hit over the head, bloodied, and arrested while standing outside his own gig smoking a cigarette.

    You don’t think these musicians weren’t angry during the creation of this music?

    Of course they were. And their music reflected their internal anger. These were hellish times to be a black artist in America.

    One can’t discuss bebop without having a greater discussion of our collective history.

    Bebop, should always be honored. It was a gift. And these cats who created it were musical giants.
    IF you have a chance try to find the Time magazine December 20th 1948. In the music section is an interesting article about bebop. There is clearly a racial component in the article written by the Time musical contributor. In many ways the article asks: is this musical?


    Note that this specific magazine is being discussed since the actress, Olivia deHavilland is on the cover and she just died last week at 104.
    (I have the actual magazine since I'm a fan of Olivia, but loved the fact there was this bebop musical article from the late 40s.
    Last edited by jameslovestal; 08-04-2020 at 03:28 PM.

  30. #79

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    It is probably comforting to assert this.

    Reality is usually more complex.

    My own understanding of Aesthetics vs Social aspects is constantly in flux. With Benny I think the two things actually worked together. You don’t actually have to choose....

    (in fact Benny had to set a social precedent in order to get the musicians he wanted... which could be an example of the quest for beauty driving social change? Put that in your pipe and smoke it Regelski...)
    Actually integration was very important to jazz as a form of music. Jazz was born in the black communities of the US. "Mainstream" jazz-imitating pop music was indeed corny, and the great jazz was coming mainly from black communities. By integrating his performing ensembles, Goodman brought the harder swinging, more edgy. even more threatening dimension of jazz into the so-called mainstream, i.e. white majority culture music audiences. That was not just a social phenomenon. It has significant effect on the actual music being played over the radio, on bandstands, and in clubs.

  31. #80

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jameslovestal
    IF you have a chance try to find the Time magazine December 20th 1948. In the music section is an interesting article about bebop. There is clearly a racial component in the article written by the Time musical contributor. In many ways the article asks: is this musical?

    Note that his specific magazine is being discussed since the actress, Olivia deHavilland is on the cover and she just died last week at 104.
    (I have the actual magazine since I'm a fan of Olivia, but loved the fact there was this bebop musical article from the late 40s.
    I found the magazine but I don’t know that the article is online.

    Yes, there were outrageous articles written about bebop in its time by people who didn’t have a clue about the music. Is this music? Hilarious!

  32. #81

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    It is probably comforting to assert this.

    Reality is usually more complex.

    My own understanding of Aesthetics vs Social aspects is constantly in flux. With Benny I think the two things actually worked together. You don’t actually have to choose....

    (in fact Benny had to set a social precedent in order to get the musicians he wanted... which could be an example of the quest for beauty driving social change? Put that in your pipe and smoke it Regelski...)
    Yes, no matter his kind intentions, their were limitations on what Benny could do. And oh man what a clarinetist he was. The man could play his ass off.

    But what did these big band leaders think of bebop? Were they threatened by it? I think not because they had a good gig going. But man did things ever change in the 50’s. R&R was a threat and then there was Miles. Miles who had kicked his habit and had a very successful showing at Newport in 1957. Miles was taking no prisoners while being on top of the musical world - However brief. But man did he have a run. People were spellbound by his muted horn. Women threw their panties at him while he had his back turned playing to the audience.

  33. #82

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
    Yes, no matter his kind intentions, their were limitations on what Benny could do. And oh man what a clarinetist he was. The man could play his ass off.
    For sure. I hope no-one here thinks I think otherwise...\

    But what did these big band leaders think of bebop? Were they threatened by it? I think not because they had a good gig going. But man did things ever change in the 50’s. R&R was a threat and then there was Miles. Miles who had kicked his habit and had a very successful showing at Newport in 1957. Miles was taking no prisoners while being on top of the musical world - However brief. But man did he have a run. People were spellbound by his muted horn. Women threw their panties at him while he had his back turned playing to the audience.
    Well, the Big Bands were basically dead by the 50's. So you had the orchestras with the singers, Basie, of course, and Ellington running his band essentially at a loss (IIRC). But the day of the bands being the main attraction was firmly dead by the bop era. It was all singers in the popular sphere, and in the jazz sphere the small bands reigned. So it doesn't seem AFAIK that the bop bands were ever in direct competition with the dance orchestras.

    And the big band era was pretty brief too. The whole of jazz history is brief until you get the Berklee era. There post modal era is about half the history of the music...

    As I understand it, the main reason why the dance circuit dried up is that it paid like shit. The Baisie orchestra in the late 30s and 40s lived a pretty basic life; but it was still better than the alternative of abject penury. The jazz clubs, the new thing, OTOH, paid a lot better.

    Obviously there are famously disparaging comments by Cab Calloway and Louis; of course the reality is that Miles hung out with Pops and so on. And the swing feel changed so radically after the war, that everyone was influenced by bop to some extent.

  34. #83

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    For sure. I hope no-one here thinks I think otherwise...\



    Well, the Big Bands were basically dead by the 50's. So you had the orchestras with the singers, Basie, of course, and Ellington running his band essentially at a loss (IIRC). But the day of the bands being the main attraction was firmly dead by the bop era. It was all singers in the popular sphere, and in the jazz sphere the small bands reigned. So it doesn't seem AFAIK that the bop bands were ever in direct competition with the dance orchestras.

    And the big band era was pretty brief too. The whole of jazz history is brief until you get the Berklee era. There post modal era is about half the history of the music...

    As I understand it, the main reason why the dance circuit dried up is that it paid like shit. The Baisie orchestra in the late 30s and 40s lived a pretty basic life; but it was still better than the alternative of abject penury. The jazz clubs, the new thing, OTOH, paid a lot better.

    Obviously there are famously disparaging comments by Cab Calloway and Louis; of course the reality is that Miles hung out with Pops and so on. And the swing feel changed so radically after the war, that everyone was influenced by bop to some extent.
    If I could go back in time it would be to those clubs! For some that was the heyday of jazz. Those clubs were rockin! Hold on, I’ve got to go put the bird dvd on again just to feel that club energy

  35. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
    Who has Barry Harris been instructing? Oh that’s right, students, who didn’t dance to their music. Why was that? Because the music had moved on.

    Coltrane as a kid played RnB. A man grows up and puts away childish things. Coltrane advanced the music forward and we’re all the better for it.

    The period between’55 and’68, when Wes died was nothing less than remarkable in moving the music forward.

    Who could foresee fusion? Not your taste? Mine either, but fact is the music moved on in the 80’s to so many young lions who put their imprint on the music.

    Where are we today? Who knows, I’m still stuck in that soundtrack between 1950-1968. There’s enough there to spend a lifetime and still not discover it all.

    Apocalyptic? What no Dexter Gordon love? I’d say your loss.

    You want to spend your time dancing to Benny Goodman? No problem, no one is stopping you.
    Well, no one is suggesting that Benny, or the whole Swing Era for that matter, is more important, or even "hipper" than Bebop or Hard Bop. Personally I find the attitude during the Hard Bop years created the hippest music and the hippest players, no doubt. But it took Swing and then Bebop to get there. When I was younger I feel like I was almost "conditioned" to think that post war Bop was the fount from which all this new coolness sprang, but later realised this "attitude" was around earlier, not just Lester but possibly even before him.

    Parker didn't come from a vacuum, and he didn't totally revolutionise the music as much as has been made out, sure he and the others introduced some new ideas (the b5, faster tempi, angular lines, irregular phrasing, rhythmic sophistication, "hip" subs etc etc) but many at the time thought he was basically a sped up version of Pres. Players like Don Byas must have felt rather annoyed that Parker stole everyone's thunder, without being all that different to what had come before, I mean, certainly not different the way that say Coltrane became different...

    Anyway, I was just musing how the fine art of Jazz improv, - using all 12 notes to create this lingua franca, all the licks and tricks and embellishments that still form the basis of what we still recognise as Jazz today - had already been perfected in the early stylings of Swing greats like Benny G. If we separate the music from the hype, I can hear the odd line in Benny's playing that is devastatingly hip, by any standards. Sure, some of his stuff does sound corny, but you can say that about of lot of Charlie Parker's stuff too! In fact, now that I think of it, even the uber cool hipster cats from the great Hard Bop era are guilty of their own fair share of schmaltz, right? And we don't hold that against them, do we? ... Just sayin'...

  36. #85

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    Parker didn't come from a vacuum, and he didn't totally revolutionise the music as much as has been made out, sure he and the others introduced some new ideas (the b5, faster tempi, angular lines, irregular phrasing, rhythmic sophistication, "hip" subs etc etc) but many at the time thought he was basically a sped up version of Pres. Players like Don Byas must have felt rather annoyed that Parker stole everyone's thunder, without being all that different to what had come before, I mean, certainly not different the way that say Coltrane became different...
    .
    Well, I for one thought Parker came from practicing his ass off in a closet. Hey if you can play that fast I don’t think you can give Bird enough credit for truly mastering his instrument in such a way to create a following. The cat turned heads and a lot of the younger players wanted to be like him enough to play with such freedom.

  37. #86

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
    I found the magazine but I don’t know that the article is online.

    Yes, there were outrageous articles written about bebop in its time by people who didn’t have a clue about the music. Is this music? Hilarious!
    Hopefully you can find it (starts on page 63) and is title: Bopera on Broadway. It mentions the Royal Roost and has some cute wordplay like: "Charlie Ventura's band had slid over its last glissando and flattened its last fifth, the audience applauded politely". (fattened its last fifth???,,, ah, those dang jazz musicians!).

    Here is more "the carefully disorganized music began again,,, bop was a very serious business - just as swing used to be".

    It talks about how Duke had been 'kind' (towards bop), while Armstrong "critical". "Dizzy Gillespie, the high cockalorum of bop, was getting top billing at the Strand Theater". "Clique Club opened it doors, and a velvet-skinned Negro named Sarah Vaughan squeezed her toothpaste-smooth voice out amongst the customers, singing in a style like a kazoo".

  38. #87

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jameslovestal
    Hopefully you can find it (starts on page 63) and is title: Bopera on Broadway. It mentions the Royal Roost and has some cute wordplay like: "Charlie Ventura's band had slid over its last glissando and flattened its last fifth, the audience applauded politely". (fattened its last fifth???,,, ah, those dang jazz musicians!).

    Here is more "the carefully disorganized music began again,,, bop was a very serious business - just as swing used to be".

    It talks about how Duke had been 'kind' (towards bop), while Armstrong "critical". "Dizzy Gillespie, the high cockalorum of bop, was getting top billing at the Strand Theater". "Clique Club opened it doors, and a velvet-skinned Negro named Sarah Vaughan squeezed her toothpaste-smooth voice out amongst the customers, singing in a style like a kazoo".
    Oh my, to imagine the roads we’ve traveled even to get to today. How far we’ve come and how far we’ve yet to go.

  39. #88

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    It is probably comforting to assert this.

    Reality is usually more complex.

    My own understanding of Aesthetics vs Social aspects is constantly in flux. With Benny I think the two things actually worked together. You don’t actually have to choose....

    (in fact Benny had to set a social precedent in order to get the musicians he wanted... which could be an example of the quest for beauty driving social change? Put that in your pipe and smoke it Regelski...)
    Hi, C,
    Although group aesthetics(contemporary) are constantly in flux(agreed), there are timeless elements to all Art whether it be Music, Visual Art, or Literature.If this were not the case, how could sentient beings of the Y2K appreciate the haunting portraits of Vermeer, the deep visceral emotionalism of Beethoven, or the pathos and humor of Cervantes' "Don Quixote?" with a biased 21st Century perspective of Art? The answer is that these gems are timeless unlike the fleeting, temporal, herd-driven aesthetics as witnessed by the "Beat" poets of the 50's, Richard Bach's abysmal "Johnathon Livingston Seagull," the cornball pathos of Rod McKuen's poems, the undecipherable cacophony of the Sun Ra Arkestra, or the entire Abstract Expressionist Movement in Art where splatters of paint are intended to represent the profundity of the human condition. Great Art transcends time. Simple Play live! . . . Marinero

  40. #89

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by neatomic
    now this is hip dance music

    the great slim n slam start things off



    cheers
    Wow...that was an entire encyclopedia of the history of popular music and dance in America. And also speaks volumes about American history in general.

    Makes the modern music scene seem limp by comparison.

  41. #90

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Marinero
    Hi, C,
    Although group aesthetics(contemporary) are constantly in flux(agreed), there are timeless elements to all Art whether it be Music, Visual Art, or Literature.If this were not the case, how could sentient beings of the Y2K appreciate the haunting portraits of Vermeer, the deep visceral emotionalism of Beethoven, or the pathos and humor of Cervantes' "Don Quixote?" with a biased 21st Century perspective of Art? The answer is that these gems are timeless unlike the fleeting, temporal, herd-driven aesthetics as witnessed by the "Beat" poets of the 50's, Richard Bach's abysmal "Johnathon Livingston Seagull," the cornball pathos of Rod McKuen's poems, the undecipherable cacophony of the Sun Ra Arkestra, or the entire Abstract Expressionist Movement in Art where splatters of paint are intended to represent the profundity of the human condition. Great Art transcends time. Simple Play live! . . . Marinero
    I will agree with you about Rod McKuen, but Sun Ra? You need to listen to him some more, especially his early stuff. It's only cacophonous if you're not paying attention.

  42. #91

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by neatomic
    now this is hip dance music

    the great slim n slam start things off



    cheers
    Entertaining, yes. But to think they couldn’t even enter a restaurant through the front door. That’s what I see when I view nostalgic videos such as this. Sad.

  43. #92

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Marinero
    Hi, C,
    Although group aesthetics(contemporary) are constantly in flux(agreed), there are timeless elements to all Art whether it be Music, Visual Art, or Literature.If this were not the case, how could sentient beings of the Y2K appreciate the haunting portraits of Vermeer, the deep visceral emotionalism of Beethoven, or the pathos and humor of Cervantes' "Don Quixote?" with a biased 21st Century perspective of Art? The answer is that these gems are timeless unlike the fleeting, temporal, herd-driven aesthetics as witnessed by the "Beat" poets of the 50's, Richard Bach's abysmal "Johnathon Livingston Seagull," the cornball pathos of Rod McKuen's poems, the undecipherable cacophony of the Sun Ra Arkestra, or the entire Abstract Expressionist Movement in Art where splatters of paint are intended to represent the profundity of the human condition. Great Art transcends time. Simple Play live! . . . Marinero
    Look, there's a very deep dive argument to be had about these things. I'm not 100% made up, and TBH I think anyone who is isn't giving the matter its due weight. People make black/white distinctions because otherwise they have to admit that they don't really have an answer 100% of the time. The internet certainly encourages this. By God, if you haven't picked a side, someone will pick a side for you.

    I suppose Art is simple if the only art you choose is that which is validated by the test of time. Of course Cervantes and Beethoven are good. BFD. However, all that art was once very much of its time. Timelessness - the test we associate with quality - is not something we can establish in the moment.... appreciating, let alone producing contemporary work requires more imagination and risk (and yes there are a lot of posers around who just latch onto whatever is fashionable because that too is safe and comforting.)

    (And do bear in mind this is a flipping straight-ahead jazz guitarist saying this. Takes one to know one.)

    The timeless quality of art. Well that's not so simple is it? When my 2 year old daughter hears the Mozart Wind Quintet and goes completely quiet saying only, with wonder '...music...' I find it very hard to dispute there's something immutable about great Art.

    However, that doesn't make it the case. For instance, my daughter is also someone who has heard me play gigs, heard musicians perform; and even through simplistic and to me incredibly grating children's songs and the Peppa Pig album etc, now knows the basic language of Western tonality (so Edwin Gordon would say.) Kids are SPONGES.

    So, would someone who didn't have all of that by osmosis by the age of 2 understand Mozart?

    And the answer to that is, as far as we can determine from science, no. Music is not a universal language in that way.

    And this should be obvious to people who can see beyond their own immediate surroundings. Think about how well you understand or appreciate musical cultures remote from yourself. Probably not very well unless you have studied them. TBH even the music of the 19th century is remote to me. I have no real feeling for symphonic form, for instance, because I have not studied it. Ask me where the development section is and I'll be hopeless.

    And my dad used to blast Beethoven and Brahms at me when I was growing up too. Not much hope for me...

    Is there a transcendent quality that great musicians can put into their music, beyond its language and conventions. Yes. I do believe that. For instance, someone who does not appreciate (even if they do not understand the musical language) Fateh Ali Kahn at first listening should be forbidden from going near a musical instrument ever again.

    Precisely because it is these things that represent the magic of music and transcend its technical banalities, it is also not something you can formulate into a science of aesthetics. To quote Kant word for word; 'The only function of aesthetics is so that sensible people can point and laugh at the foolish (usually Germans) who spend their lives doing it. Throwing rotten fruit and vegetables is optional, but to be encouraged. They must crawl back into the musicology departments from whence they issued and trouble no more the sunlit world.'

    (I am of course kidding, but not entirely)

    So, I am sort of a Romantic. I also hate the idea (sometimes suggested if not stated) that music education should be purely praxis oriented. I find that patronising. Music needs an aesthetic. There's nothing wrong with doing something that sounds good (by whatever subjective criteria.) If I didn't think beauty was important I would scarcely bother playing jazz, would I?

    An interesting sidebar; Western classical music is in fact becoming more of an international lingua franca with every year. On my course is a classical piano teacher from India; classical music is very popular throughout Asia, for example. So there's something that appeals; who knows. Probably prestige, but maybe other things too.

    An aesthetic that is frozen in one era - say the era of functional tonality - has the comforting quality of being known. That's one thing that makes it an aesthetic really. I find it interesting that Reimann's great work on functional harmony wasn't published until Wagner and Strauss set about breaking all its rules. An aesthetic is always in the process of being destroyed. That's part of the fun.

    By now of course, Wagner, Strauss, and for that matter Schoenberg and Boulez are ancient history. (There's a thought - perhaps a mistake of High Modernism was specifying an aesthetic rather than allowing it naturally to emerge, as it had in previous eras?) Barnett Newman and Pollock are ancient history too for that matter. Those aesthetics have been attacked and destroyed, too. TBF, there's not much that hasn't, so finding a dominant aesthetic of our era is quite hard; it is probably to be found in commercial music, as always.

    As a human being I usually react, often quite viscerally. I think there's value in that too. I'm growing more and more cautious of trying to make up bullshit rationalisations of my feelings and reactions to music and art in general, and certainly trying to make out that my feelings and reactions to music are somehow more based in 'objectivity' than someone else's. Such a belief will lead you straight to the musicology department, and we all know how that goes, mark my words.
    Last edited by christianm77; 08-04-2020 at 06:40 PM.

  44. #93

    User Info Menu

    *Ahem* Anyway, as you were lol....
    Last edited by christianm77; 08-04-2020 at 06:50 PM.

  45. #94

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
    If I could go back in time it would be to those clubs! For some that was the heyday of jazz. Those clubs were rockin! Hold on, I’ve got to go put the bird dvd on again just to feel that club energy
    Oh another point - Cuban music really took off in the 40s and 50s... That was connected to bop too. So the dance orchestras that there were played that music, Mambos and so on.

    Swing dance band work dried up because that generation was growing up and, you know, after also fighting in the largest conflict in world history probably keen to settle down, raise a family and listen to Frank.

  46. #95

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jameslovestal
    Hopefully you can find it (starts on page 63) and is title: Bopera on Broadway. It mentions the Royal Roost and has some cute wordplay like: "Charlie Ventura's band had slid over its last glissando and flattened its last fifth, the audience applauded politely". (fattened its last fifth???,,, ah, those dang jazz musicians!).

    Here is more "the carefully disorganized music began again,,, bop was a very serious business - just as swing used to be".

    It talks about how Duke had been 'kind' (towards bop), while Armstrong "critical". "Dizzy Gillespie, the high cockalorum of bop, was getting top billing at the Strand Theater". "Clique Club opened it doors, and a velvet-skinned Negro named Sarah Vaughan squeezed her toothpaste-smooth voice out amongst the customers, singing in a style like a kazoo".
    Thos vintage Downbeat articles are cringe AF. Having read a few of them, I confirm the music press has not changed one iota in the best part of a century.

    There's a lot of stuff about the Benny/Artie Shaw rivalry for instance. So I feel I should put some of Artie's small band music on the thread, because it is lit, as the kids say. Some crispy early Barney for your delight.


  47. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Marinero
    Hi, C,
    Although group aesthetics(contemporary) are constantly in flux(agreed), there are timeless elements to all Art whether it be Music, Visual Art, or Literature.If this were not the case, how could sentient beings of the Y2K appreciate the haunting portraits of Vermeer, the deep visceral emotionalism of Beethoven, or the pathos and humor of Cervantes' "Don Quixote?" with a biased 21st Century perspective of Art? The answer is that these gems are timeless unlike the fleeting, temporal, herd-driven aesthetics as witnessed by the "Beat" poets of the 50's, Richard Bach's abysmal "Johnathon Livingston Seagull," the cornball pathos of Rod McKuen's poems, the undecipherable cacophony of the Sun Ra Arkestra, or the entire Abstract Expressionist Movement in Art where splatters of paint are intended to represent the profundity of the human condition. Great Art transcends time. Simple Play live! . . . Marinero
    Will it Float? Remember that TV skit? Always hard to guess what eventually floats in Arts / Entertainment, too. While I agree it's our only reliable yardstick with which to appraise works of the past in order to ascribe merit in a broader historical context, you have to wonder how many great works got lost in the fog and sunk to oblivion, perhaps never to be rediscovered, let alone fetishised.

    Interesting discussion though, isn't it? How often have we all wondered why "such and such", from the dim dark past, doesn't get the respect and attention we feel is deserved? Forgotten Philosophers, Poets, Painters, Composers etc, that have faded to obscurity seemingly with little chance of resurrection, whilst select obscure names can sometimes be suddenly re-ignited and catapulted into the Pantheon of the Greats. I can supply a long list of such redeemed artists in many fields (just as I'm sure you all can), but on the other hand I think we can all think of many names that we feel are still waiting for their due recognition...

    I often welcome the resurrected, like when they rescued the great tenor sax player Tina Brooks from obscurity. But like many, he needed a respected champion to come along, make a fuss and draw attention to the lost recordings. The intriguing back story seemed to help too, and now the Jazz world treasures the lost unreleased Blue Notes, and rightly so. But what about all the others waiting to be re floated? Where is their champion? Is it down to dumb luck? Current Fashion? Or do you believe that everything of great merit eventually gets it's rightful place on the mantle? As though its inevitable that the herd eventually gets it right?

    But does it? Surely contemporary social mores dictate what is "in" one year or out the next? Just look at every comedian considered non PC from the past 100 years, how are they faring today? How will they fare in 100 years from now? (hopefully better!) Sometimes the failure to accord due respect to artists from the past is just inexplicable, perhaps just bad luck. To help make my point here I'll offer the example of Benny's band mate, a certain Mr Charlie Christian. OK, so he is a Godhead to us here of this Jazz Guitar Forum - as he should be - but outside of the Jazz guitar community, especially outside of the US, his name continues to draw a blank. Yet ask anyone if they've heard of Chuck Berry, or Keith Richards, and of course everyone knows them. But the source of most of their simple dumbed down licks? , as well as the source and inspiration for protoBop, Western Swing, Jump Blues, Rockabilly, heck even Rock'nRoll ?? ... I'll bet you 95% of guitarists don't know who Charlie Christian is, let alone why they should!

    So you can't always rely on the fullness of time, nor the wisdom of the herd to set the ledger straight. History, like the herd, often gets it wrong. Just sayin'...

  48. #97

    User Info Menu

    Many, if not most, of the painters whose work now sells for 6 or 7 or more figures, struggled to make a living during their lifetimes. Tastes change, and what is considered banal today may be lionized tomorrow, and vice versa.

  49. #98

    User Info Menu

    Jazz, it's a Floor Wax and a Dessert Topping!

  50. #99

    User Info Menu

    This is fun in itself and Benny G. shows up at about 17:50 (via Herbie H.) :


  51. #100

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Look, there's a very deep dive argument to be had about these things. I'm not 100% made up, and TBH I think anyone who is isn't giving the matter its due weight. People make black/white distinctions because otherwise they have to admit that they don't really have an answer 100% of the time. The internet certainly encourages this. By God, if you haven't picked a side, someone will pick a side for you.

    I suppose Art is simple if the only art you choose is that which is validated by the test of time. Of course Cervantes and Beethoven are good. BFD. However, all that art was once very much of its time. Timelessness - the test we associate with quality - is not something we can establish in the moment.... appreciating, let alone producing contemporary work requires more imagination and risk (and yes there are a lot of posers around who just latch onto whatever is fashionable because that too is safe and comforting.)

    (And do bear in mind this is a flipping straight-ahead jazz guitarist saying this. Takes one to know one.)

    The timeless quality of art. Well that's not so simple is it? When my 2 year old daughter hears the Mozart Wind Quintet and goes completely quiet saying only, with wonder '...music...' I find it very hard to dispute there's something immutable about great Art.

    However, that doesn't make it the case. For instance, my daughter is also someone who has heard me play gigs, heard musicians perform; and even through simplistic and to me incredibly grating children's songs and the Peppa Pig album etc, now knows the basic language of Western tonality (so Edwin Gordon would say.) Kids are SPONGES.

    So, would someone who didn't have all of that by osmosis by the age of 2 understand Mozart?

    And the answer to that is, as far as we can determine from science, no. Music is not a universal language in that way.

    And this should be obvious to people who can see beyond their own immediate surroundings. Think about how well you understand or appreciate musical cultures remote from yourself. Probably not very well unless you have studied them. TBH even the music of the 19th century is remote to me. I have no real feeling for symphonic form, for instance, because I have not studied it. Ask me where the development section is and I'll be hopeless.

    And my dad used to blast Beethoven and Brahms at me when I was growing up too. Not much hope for me...

    Is there a transcendent quality that great musicians can put into their music, beyond its language and conventions. Yes. I do believe that. For instance, someone who does not appreciate (even if they do not understand the musical language) Fateh Ali Kahn at first listening should be forbidden from going near a musical instrument ever again.

    Precisely because it is these things that represent the magic of music and transcend its technical banalities, it is also not something you can formulate into a science of aesthetics. To quote Kant word for word; 'The only function of aesthetics is so that sensible people can point and laugh at the foolish (usually Germans) who spend their lives doing it. Throwing rotten fruit and vegetables is optional, but to be encouraged. They must crawl back into the musicology departments from whence they issued and trouble no more the sunlit world.'

    (I am of course kidding, but not entirely)

    So, I am sort of a Romantic. I also hate the idea (sometimes suggested if not stated) that music education should be purely praxis oriented. I find that patronising. Music needs an aesthetic. There's nothing wrong with doing something that sounds good (by whatever subjective criteria.) If I didn't think beauty was important I would scarcely bother playing jazz, would I?

    An interesting sidebar; Western classical music is in fact becoming more of an international lingua franca with every year. On my course is a classical piano teacher from India; classical music is very popular throughout Asia, for example. So there's something that appeals; who knows. Probably prestige, but maybe other things too.

    An aesthetic that is frozen in one era - say the era of functional tonality - has the comforting quality of being known. That's one thing that makes it an aesthetic really. I find it interesting that Reimann's great work on functional harmony wasn't published until Wagner and Strauss set about breaking all its rules. An aesthetic is always in the process of being destroyed. That's part of the fun.

    By now of course, Wagner, Strauss, and for that matter Schoenberg and Boulez are ancient history. (There's a thought - perhaps a mistake of High Modernism was specifying an aesthetic rather than allowing it naturally to emerge, as it had in previous eras?) Barnett Newman and Pollock are ancient history too for that matter. Those aesthetics have been attacked and destroyed, too. TBF, there's not much that hasn't, so finding a dominant aesthetic of our era is quite hard; it is probably to be found in commercial music, as always.

    As a human being I usually react, often quite viscerally. I think there's value in that too. I'm growing more and more cautious of trying to make up bullshit rationalisations of my feelings and reactions to music and art in general, and certainly trying to make out that my feelings and reactions to music are somehow more based in 'objectivity' than someone else's. Such a belief will lead you straight to the musicology department, and we all know how that goes, mark my words.
    Interesting thoughts, as always. The subject of Schoenberg'12-tone method of composition, and his impact on music has always fascinated me. As you said, specifying an aesthetic, rather than letting it emerge, which I believe was the case with Schoenberg's system (and I don't care about the Tristan Chord argument), could have been the greatest mistake Modernism ever made (besides Fraud, I mean Freud)
    Unlike Bartok, Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel, Hindemith, Honegger, Copland, etc..., AS' 12-tone method specified a mathematical formula to compose music that had nothing to do with Wagner. Even his "Transfigured Night" was ersatz Wagner, IMHO, and hardly qualified him as a "Master".
    What music did it emege from? Nothing I can think of. Every other type of music had a tonal center, and his "all notes are equal" theory emerged only from AS' theories.
    As time went on, and the 12-tone system took over academia, classical music began to whither away.
    Even Gunther Schuller, Schoenberg's biggest champion of AS' 12-tone method of composition in the US, wrote in an essay on the subject, "The concert halls are emptying, we have to do something about it."
    He then compared the 12-tone system to other innovations in music, and said, "Genius is often ten or twenty years ahead of his time, but it's been over 50 years (this was back in 1960, so add another 60 years to that-120 years!!!!), and there is still no indication that this music has been accepted by any fraction of the public".
    I can hear the theory heads replying to this (noses slightly out of joint), "But the 12-tone system is the only valid method of writing truly 'new' music!
    You're just not up with the times. WE all use it."
    To which I can only reply FY.
    I was recently amused to find out that Milton Babbitt was a full professor of Mathematics at Princeton U., but when many in the music faculty got drafted one year, he filled in the gap, and became a professor of music!