-
Originally Posted by itsmynameOriginally Posted by itsmyname
By the same thing I mean playing the tune and flowing through the melody and harmony. This lasted from around 1920 (maybe earlier) until around 1970 when fusion broke and when mod broke. However, traditional jazz continues til this day, it's what most of us are playing on our clips..
-
06-27-2022 07:36 AM
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
The absence of qualities does not automatically mean something is a parent style. And how do you decide which parent style? Seems like you make a leap there with no explanation.
So your flow charts are pretty silly, to put it mildly.
-
It's a modal tune where he's not flowing through changes but the other golden age jazz characteristics are all there such as swing, instrumentation, and melody language so it's jazz. How is that silly? You guys are acting really childish and irrational just because I know what jazz is. Kind of weird.
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
What's silly is using flow charts to express what you and I already know, but which don't in any case stand up to scrutiny. For example telling us something it fusion simply because it doesn't feature changes, even though the tune Spanish Key does actually feature slow-moving changes, and that plenty of fusion e.g. Allan Holdsworth does feature changes. Also the instrumentation of Bitches Brew is clearly derived from previous forms of jazz and I would argue that while rhythmically it is based on rock and funk rhythms, there is clearly a strong swing component to the rhythms as well, without featuring anything stereotypically 'swing'. Also there are textures like group improvisation that are not too far removed from some classic jazz, and also features quite a bit on some notable free jazz records like Ascension.
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
Originally Posted by docsteve
-
The only flowchart anyone needs.
-
Originally Posted by James W
Coltrane's "India" is not Fusion, per se, since it has no elements of Rock at its core. However, it certainly can be described as an influence on Fusion's later spirit. Coltrane, one of my favorite musicians(early music), screwed my head up as a young saxer in the 60's for a couple of years and I believe I lost valuable time trying to pursue elusive musical goals promulgated by a musician whose life was spiraling downward and steeped in heroin addiction. This music("India") says nothing to me other than despair, confusion, and a serious creator with artist's block. Everyone in my generation wanted to play like 'Train . . . most of us survived.
Marinero
P.S. Here's Coltrane at his best.
-
Coltrane had kicked his habit by the end of the 1950s, by all accounts, so he was ‘clean’ by the time he recorded ‘India’ in 1961.
As it happens, the Johnny Hartman tracks were recorded even later, in 1963.
-
Originally Posted by Marinero
1) Coltrane had given up heroin (and alcohol) in 1957.
2) Contrary to what you say, his life was not 'spiralling downward' in the 60s, on the contrary he was always inspired and moving forward from year to year, the way his playing progressed in the space of a decade after conquering his addictions is phenomenal. He was earning a very nice amount from Impulse, as well as from tours and concerts and married Alice and had kids. Obviously this was marred by the pain the cancer caused him in the last year or so of his life.
Now not facts, just my opinion:
My favourite playing of his is in fact on one of the last albums he made, Interstellar Space. It is phenomenal, I love it. I recently wrote about it elsewhere which I'll copy and paste here:
'I've just listened to John Coltrane's Interstellar Space. Such transcendentally sublime music! One always wants more of such great music - but, like Bitches Brew and a few other greats, it seems as though it's in their nature that they're special and unique and thus by definition there's not much other music that's of similar quality or expressive quiddity, at least in this corner of the repertoire. But Interstellar Space is so profoundly ecstatic, its ecstasy is only matched by its dazzling colourfulness and cosmic expressiveness. The subtleties of the rhythms, which while still audibly indebted to previous forms of jazz, have clearly moved on into new realms of freedom - drummer Rashied Ali's style enabled Coltrane to take this approach, where he revisits the 'sheets of sound' that was a feature of much of his playing in 57/58 but now in a different musical context where what was only implicit in the earlier music I think now is fulfilled in terms of how incredibly intricate but equally incredibly fast the music often is and that the drummer's role is more as a partner rather than time-keeper - I think the colouristic drumming on 'Venus', the use of brushes for example, contribute greatly to that piece's particular manifestation of exquisiteness. The interplay between saxophone and drums assumes some awesome forms in spontaneous unison passages in 'Jupiter Variation' and while much of the album might seem brash or imperious it is at the same time highly nuanced; visceral screams coexist with cerebral harmony. One of the interesting things about this album is that, though as already mentioned he revisited certain stylistic aspects from his playing from the 50s, otherwise much of his vocabulary here is not really found in his releases during the year prior to it, and it appears as an especially inspired suite whose existence one might not have guessed from listening to the Temple University live album recorded just a few months prior. His playing here shows the influence of Albert Ayler but this is transformed and taken to a new level by dint of harmonic techniques Coltrane had developed of playing over pieces of one or two chords using ideas derived from his Giant Steps chord changes, and it is from this amongst other things that the music derives its colourfulness, by the freedom and surprising routes through which motifs are transposed and sequences created. There are aspects of his vocabulary that sound astonishing through their textural effect, such as lightspeed multiphonic passages but which are integrated into his harmonic and melodic concept. And also his tone at this point, with its somewhat nasal quality and fast vibrato, was somewhat shehnai-like ... such a great album, and tragic that this zenith is reached a few months before Coltrane died.'
-
Originally Posted by grahambop
This "may" be true but Coltrane continued to be influenced by drugs as he was using LSD after that period. Here's an interesting article:
John Coltrane - People on Psychedelics
.
Marinero
-
Originally Posted by Marinero
-
Originally Posted by grahambop
I am simply saying that Coltrane had drug issues throughout his entire life. If you know about addiction, all addicts/alcoholics have periods when they don't use drugs/alcohol before, sadly, returning to their abuse. How one could possibly record events of this nature and match them to recordings of his work is unclear to me. Nonetheless, they still remain compromised individuals susceptible to setbacks in their substance abuse. During my most active years in Music--60's/70's, early 80's, it seemed everyone used drugs. And, many used hard drugs. Thomas says in "Chasin' the Trane":
- "The pervasive influence of ingesting acid may have produced the eerie, mystical vibrations that emanated from their recording of Om, which included, in addition to some of the freest and strangest music Coltrane ever recorded, the chanting of selected verses from the Bhagavad-Gita. And when Trane returned from his LSD trip, he said, as if quoting a Sufi sage, "I perceived the interrelationship of all life forms.""
- Chasin' the Trane: The music and mystique of John Coltrane by J. C. Thomas
Coltrane recorded "Om" in 1965-- two years before his death when he was reportedly "clean." Using LSD, a hallucinogenic drug hardly can be described as "clean." Well, I hope my remarks are clear.
Marinero
-
Bill Evans had drug issues throughout his adult live, yet everyone digs Bill Evans.
Who did not have drug issues? Why is it an issue?
-
LSD is a drug unlike the other "hard" drugs: you can not get addicted from LSD.
so, being clean from addictive drugs or alcohol and use some LSD every now and then is no real contradiction.
Is LSD addictive? | Drug Policy Alliance
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
So we are defining not all jazz, but traditional jazz. No modal, no fusion, no avant-garde, no Third Way, no Bossa Nova. None of that. Nothing but take a standard and play the changes.
We will define jazz by describing a type of jazz. Voila! We have a definition! Our reasoning is circular but our answer is square.
Next up, what is Goth?
-
^ No, the flow chart defines all jazz. Modal like classic Miles is jazz because it overlaps primarily with the rest of the characteristics established in the jazz golden age. If the band were playing modally but forwent all other characteristics of jazz then it would be the parent style. Fusion and avant garde are separate genres related to jazz. They can do whatever they want but use some instrumentation and language of jazz. Third stream is a separate genre and is a fusion of jazz and classical although it could be considered jazz if it satisfies the first question. Bossa Nova is jazz because it satisfies the first question. Pretty straight forward.
Yes, your reasoning is very circular. It's obvious that my description describes jazz very well and you guys are just having a strange emotional troll reaction and trying to veto it while disregarding any semblance of reason.
I have to clarify that I am not 'mad' at anyone, and my aim is only to discuss. However, I'm not conceding to 'there's no definition of jazz', or 'jazz is an attitude' nonsense. Especially when my definition describes very accurately. I'm not going to come to your house and get you if you think BB is jazz. Fine, of course there could be exceptions in the definition, but you have to at least admit that my description is quite accurate, at least a ballpark, and dispels 'there's no definition of jazz' ideas.
-
Originally Posted by docsteve
-
Originally Posted by James W
There's nothing silly. Read my previous posts where I go through examples and stop trying to misquote me to disprove me. It's effective in determining what jazz is in all cases. I would agree that BB is debatable. I would classify it as fusion but it wasn't too far removed from classic jazz so I wouldn't come get you if you want to call it jazz.Last edited by Bobby Timmons; 06-27-2022 at 06:59 PM.
-
I
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
Anyway that’s all fine.
regarding the being ‘serious’ thing - there’s a difference between having an opinion and putting forth some sort of self consistent definition or proof.
People can disagree in the first case, but ultimately it’s a matter of opinison so everyone can just accept it.
In the second instance you are making a case, trying to convince others by argument. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the second case appears to be what you are trying to do here.
You seem to want others to accept your view as somehow self evident. (What appears at first to be self evident to you may not in fact be self evident to others.)
So what I’m saying is that you haven’t yet given me enough info to understand your definition, much less argue against it. It seems I’m not alone on that, to judge from other comments.
But of course, for all I know you may indeed have a good, tight, definition. Just because I haven’t thought of it of course doesn’t mean you haven’t.
Problem is you haven’t given me enough to make you case as I see it. The criteria you have presented seem highly open to interpretation. I have my own criteria of what golden age jazz characteristics are but they may not necessarily match yours.
As a result the criteria you have given don’t seem to do what you say they do, which is presumably to give the same result regardless of who applies them. At least that seems to be what you are saying in the OP ‘stop being silly’ or words to that effect.
They remain subjective.
In fact, this is highly contested ground, as I’ve explained for historical reasons. Better musicians, musicologists and critics than you or I disagree about this stuff. This tends to lead me to think this stuff is a bit of a waste of energy. Let it be subjective. It’s cool.
Expecting the flow chart to return a binary is also a bit, well, let me put it this way - on exactly which of his records did Miles stop being jazz and start being fusion? And why?
I think I and most people would tend to see more characteristics emerging - the adoption of modal harmony, free jazz techniques, electric instruments, throughout the 60s as paving the way towards In a Silent Way with quite a few transitional recordings (and the underrepresented Lost Quintet of course.)
That said I’ve never thought of Bitches Brew as fusion. Part of the reason I think this is there a lot of people who hate fusion who love BB. It seems like a different thing, much looser and more open. The main thing it has in common is the instrumentation and the fact its based on straight 8’s.
Fusion to me is a much tighter thing - more like the mid 70s Tony Williams Lifetime or Mahavishnu developing into the super slick Brecker Brothers/Bob Berg type stuff of the 80s.
But naturally, people have different dividing lines. And it’s perfectly ok.Last edited by Christian Miller; 06-27-2022 at 07:45 PM.
-
Originally Posted by Filmosound 621
Marinero
-
@ Christian: Swing, instrumentation, melody language, acoustic dynamics, extended harmonies, etc. Read the thread.
My explanation is self consistent and self evident. You're the one who's having a triggered troll reaction for some undisclosed reason.
Explain how the several examples I've gone through don't suggest that my explanation is probably correct. And if that's not satisfactory, continue with the examples to see if my definition breaks down. (It won't.)
I'm not dogmatic about BB. I would view it as fusion because it's modal and uses rock grooves, while it does use some jazz dynamics, instrumentation, and harmony. To me if something is modal, and uses a groove from a different genre, then there's no reason to really call it jazz when it fits perfectly well in the genre that it represents.
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
(ok fair enough i was being quite smug, sorry. Not cool.)
I’m being quite genuine here now.
So - unironically, I’m sure it does make sense in your head, you certainly seem very sure of it.
as a point of info - I think my view is simply an opinion. The point of difference here is that I think you are also voicing a subjective opinion that you think is more objectively grounded than it is.
So, if you want to convince other people that you are objectively right in some way it’s reasonable to ask for more info and challenge on the details. If you are unwilling to get into the nitty gritty of that, and I can see why you might, it’s going to remain an opinion in the eyes of others.
That’s just the way it is, beyond that I can’t really help even if it seems I’m being wilfully difficult or whatever. And, I have to say a few people here have voiced basically the same thing.
i also wish you, genuinely, a great day.
-
Thanks. So yes, I did phrase the op implying that it's objective. I do know that it's an opinion of mine, however I do feel that it's verifiable and am open to debate on it. I don't feel the need to take over the forum with my sole definition of jazz, however I do feel it's within our capacity to move past the notions of 'there is no definition of jazz', 'jazz is an attitude', or 'there could be a definition but no 1 person is permitted to cement it'.
I still think you can follow the logic in the op to determine if any music is jazz or not. If you want to discuss the gray area music which would be defined by question 2, I have listed some basic elements of the jazz golden age. I'm open to discussion and can try to break them down further or we can go over examples. Again, BB is a good example of gray area.Last edited by Bobby Timmons; 06-28-2022 at 05:43 AM.
-
Originally Posted by Marinero
You just need to listen to the music for evidence of this. But, I shall quote Lewis Porter from his excellent book on Coltrane:
'The barrage of sound presented by Coltrane's last works may, unfortunately, conceal from many listeners the magnificent power of Coltrane's playing. What seems to be chaotic is just the opposite. Coltrane managed to create long solos that flowed from theme to improvisation - which is just what he said he wanted. And the improvisations were devoted relentlessly to the exploration of abstract motivic ideas.'
'His own playing is perfectly coherent on all his late recordings - in fact, incredibly so'.
My point is, whether Coltrane dropped acid lots is irrelevant, and the fact that you're going on about LSD rather than the music itself probably means you have nothing to say about the music itself.
But for the record - I myself have had long experiences of drug-induced psychosis - originally caused just from smoking weed but then it was from the frying pan into the fire when I started misusing MDMA and other things. And then I continued misusing and overusing substances even while taking antipsychotics which led to the rare condition of oculogyric crisis - a very unpleasant condition to have. Fortunately I have recovered now.
Evidently however, these substances can have therapeutic and creative value and that even if I didn't know Coltrane's biographical details (which I do because I have Lewis Porter's excellent book) I would guess from his late music that his playing had reached an apogee by its incredible strength and vitality, and in fact that he had essentially hit upon a new concept in Interstellar Space well, it's incredible which ever way you look at it.
In my own experience I know that if Coltrane had suffered from the consequences of a bad trip - like depression and psychosis - he simply would have stopped creating. But evidently, he didn't.
Odd reverb L5
Today, 07:59 AM in For Sale