-
Originally Posted by ragman1
I love them all.
-
12-11-2021 04:42 PM
-
Originally Posted by AndreasVanGreunen
In fact, I'm seeing him at Yoshi's in Oakland on Monday :-)
-
Originally Posted by curbucci
I think jazz itself is a fairly useless category to describe a lot of what goes on these days. I love Ben Monder and Theo Bleckman’s work but I have no desire to categorise it as jazz though both musicians come from that world.
But I’m comfortable with not always categorising things and simply calling it ‘original music’.
Or Krantz mangling a strat. People seem to get very exercised over the right to call that jazz for some reason, but to me it would be enjoyed by people who might have no interest in acoustic jazz. I think it’s great btw, seen Wayne twice. In practical terms this stuff gets booked at jazz clubs, so whatever.
OTOH Rosenwinkel always goes in that kind of jazz space to me, and one of the most exciting records I’ve heard in the past year is a jazz guitarist with a fat hollow body playing Ellington tunes really absurdly well.
Sometimes it takes me a long while to understand a musician’s original work. I love Lage Lund on standards because it helps me hear what he’s doing but I have no reference points yet for some of his originals work. It’s clearly interesting.
That said it often feels like the guitarists are a but out of touch with fashion in jazz which has moved towards the hip hop/electronic fusion direction that the guitar doesn’t quite fit into (Kurt had elements though). Sometimes that’s a good thing.
I’m not great at listening to stuff from the wider music world; by which I mean stuff which isn’t written about by jazz journalists… but I do quite like what I hear from the wider non-chart non-jazz music world. There’s a lot of interesting work out there.
-
I don't really know what the thread is about.
Am I too old or what?
-
One of the Albums in my youth that had a pivotal influence on my opinions was Miles Davis’s Panthalassa. I knew Miles was a Jazz icon. This music was not 2-5-1 swing tunes that Jazz is so often characterised as being. It took a while for me to reconcile how to connect this music with Jazz.
My music teacher at the time pointed out that everything in the music textbook was a history book of sorts and that the evolution of Jazz had moved too far beyond what the commonly taught pedagogy was providing. It was ‘too new’ for the curriculum to catch up to. He also noted that ‘Classical music’ is also a Genre that encompasses many harmonic forms, historical periods, ensemble sizes and content etc but it is still broadly described as Classical. Jazz is the same but younger it too was evolving.
I saw his point and it still is today. Jazz might have its roots in swing but so much jazz no longer is defined but swing alone. Some of the names described today create their music with a combination of effects pedals as well. Take Mary Halvorsen- she uses two at once! Mike Stern loves his reverb and the fusion artists take whatever they can lay their hands on.
There are hundreds of modern day Jazz musicians. Many do not stick to swing or standard chord progressions of the past, but they are as valid as those from the past. Probably all started with learning standards vas a foundation skill and evolved it from there. My long winded point ( sorry) - if I constrained my definition of jazz to swing and 2-5-1 classic progressions only, not only could I not appreciate the broader world if this genre but I would be divorcing the conversation of anything outside of that definition.
stay safe all
EMike
-
I'm gradually posting threads with original music by some of these people.
Actually, Scofield is one guitarist who is discussed here quite often and he was already 21st century back in the 1980s, no argument there. Stern, too. So maybe the younger players are ignored because they're .... young?? If so, suspected old fert syndrome strikes again.
Now look here chaps, I'm beginning to regret using the term old furts. But, relating it to actual body gases? Really? So what about when someone is called an a**hole?
We saw Hogan's heroes in the UK back in the day. Great show and I have a very good memory... but don't remember a specific guitarist at Klink's birthday party. Is it on YT, maybe?
Yes curbucci, a lot of these players are composers and/or have a very personal style, and that is also my main area of interest. Sheer (mere) technical ability to play Giant Steps perfectly at breakneck speeds is not my thing at all, and I skip over those players.
Nice post, that last one, EastwoodMike.
-
Sw
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
— Bill Evans
-
Originally Posted by Peter C
Who are you addressing this thread to?
Whether someone is old or young, he can listen to what he wants.
Jazz is freedom.
All these young musicians have great respect for their older fellow musicians.
They often took lessons from distinguished senior musicians.
The young musicians did not come from outer space.
I listen a lot to Davis, Coltrane, Evans, Mccoy Tyner, Scof, K. Barron because I am connected with it and I like it very much. Every now and then I will listen to e.g. Jesse van Ruller because I like it.
Jazz musicians understand this well.
-
Originally Posted by rictroll
I’m less and less convinced by these sorts of viewpoints, and BE has a few quotes to this effect. As a BE admirer, I disagree.
Was Bach a jazz musician when he improvised a fugue? Was Ravi Shankar when he improvised on a Raag?
i wonder if the equation of jazz with improvisation is a product of the fact that people at this time in the US were unfamiliar with improvisation in other musics. Of course jazz was a big inspiration to those wishing to explore improv, but we’ve moved on.
My real problem - and I don’t think this was ever Bill’s intention in a million years - but to define jazz in this way is to minimise its history, social and cultural aspects, including its unique fusion of African and European musical cultures. as an musician who had worked with the best, perhaps this culture was so natural to him that he didn’t give it much thought. This was a world with standard songs on the radio, and full jazz clubs, and in New York a community of some of the greatest musicians in the history of the world.
And Jazz doesn’t have to improvised at all. Improvisation itself I think is mistakenly characterised as an instantaneous process. Perhaps it was for Bill, but it wasn’t for everybody.
OTOH the music no longer exists as it did in the 50s, it’s classical music now. But no one expects a composer studying chorale harmony to make a living composing like Bach.
-
Check out this rare interview with John Coltrane.
He was young in 1960, he was about 34 years old.
-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Originally Posted by kris
don’t want to be too dismissive of one of my favourite musicians haha, but I don’t agree with that line.
-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
First, let this composer learn what BACH has written.
-
The other thing Bill doesn’t discuss in that one liner (!) is the community aspect of the music. I can’t imagine that being lost on him.
The one liner I prefer is ‘jazz is social music’ (Miles Davis)
-
Originally Posted by kris
They also study Bach’s music.
-
John Coltrane's Work Ethic
-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
I meant something else.
Bach's music is an unearthly power.
Some musicians play Bach all their lives.
As if they couldn't live without playing Bach.
-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Originally Posted by EastwoodMike
My criticism of Bill Evans definition is based on that too. Jazz can’t actually simply be a how or what; it is both of these things and also a who, a where and a when. (BE’s complex thoughts on music are of course not limited to quotable one liners.)
Bear in mind for the entire history there was always some group of fans of the older music saying that the new stuff wasn’t jazz - this goes back to the 1930s lol. So I’m at pains not to say the new stuff isn’t jazz; it’s more that I’m not that attached to the jazz label; but a lot of people seem to be. It seems to me it has more to do with the peculiarities of our musical micro economy and who books who than anything that might help people out.
And of course there’s the perpetual jazz musicians moan about how little actual jazz gets booked at so called jazz festivals. I’m pretty open minded, but I don’t include headline pop acts as ‘jazz’, and note that the lady who booked the Cork jazz festival in 2018 lost the gig because she booked too much jazz lol. So jazz means whatever is expedient it seems, and I can’t help but feel that robs the term of all meaning.
All that said; Mike Stern is a bop guitar player like 75% of the time haha, it takes more than playing a tele through some pedals to lose that. the NYC fusion players of that generation were soooo boppy. I do think people think there’s more of a difference between funky 16th feels, Latin feels and swing feels than there is sometimes. It all comes from the same source; a fast bop swing is a double funk groove…. Don’t be fooled by the drum pattern haha
Oh and Mary Halverson couldn’t be anything but jazz; that’s a clear cut one to me. Anyone listening to her stuff who doesn’t know jazz would recognise it as such. They would say ‘urgh turn off that ghastly jazz racket!’
Wayne Krantz? Not so sure… I think most people would hate it but I don’t know if they’d diagnose it as jazz. Maybe you need a saxophone.
Another thread; if you asked him, Bach didn’t write ‘classical’ or even ‘baroque’ music. He would have told you he wrote ‘church music’; Mozart and Haydn as well as the lesser heard contemporary Italians such Salieri, Durante and Paisello who wrote in the Italianate ‘Gallant’ style. Later historians classified it all into neat eras, but the whole idea of labelling this music is often to serve some extra musical project; in the case of ‘classical music’ burgeoning German nationalism during the 19th century. Debussy never called himself an impressionist, and so on.
Labels should be regarded with the same suspicion Miles had imo.Last edited by Christian Miller; 12-12-2021 at 06:19 AM.
-
Originally Posted by kris
Bach’s basic style wasn’t singular in his own era though and is replicable. Maybe if I put Bach in inverted commas ‘Bach’ in this case
But the same is true of Charlie Parker. Plenty can play in his style … but no one can be him.
(I’ll leave aside the question of where Bach derives his power because if you think I’m writing too much now…. you have no idea! But he was always a musician’s musician.)
-
All is explained. Steve Allen introduces Bill Evans and his brother, Harry, talking about learning and playing jazz. Allen says, "The goal is to allow the subconscious mind to take over basic mechanical tasks, freeing the conscious mind to concentrate on the spontaneous creative elements that distinguish the best jazz.”
[/FONT]
-
Originally Posted by Lobomov
I think there’s other reasons.
-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
There was made a CD from this jazz concert.
Attachment 86812Last edited by kris; 12-12-2021 at 08:33 AM.
-
When there are no women at jazz concerts, it gets really sad.
-
It is not like that.
If you are an active musician you don't have time to listen to everything that is currently being recorded.
Although some may be interested in how they have time.
The musician mainly has to practice and learn from whatever suits him.
Like Coltrane -25 hours a day.
Inactive musicians can be passionate according to their taste.
Is the topic of this thread given by the active musician?
RIP Nick Gravenites
Today, 05:48 PM in The Players