What do you hear in Charles Altura's language?

[medblues]

....For me it has nothing to do with the music of Miles, except that Blanchard also plays the trumpet.
It is very good that there are interesting musicians offering a different way of playing and sound.
Besides, it's very nice fresh music.
Thanks for the links.
ps.

There is definitely some Bitches Brew impressions happening there !

[jbromusic]

Man yeah, a bunch of jazz hacks like Chick Corea, Terence Blanchard, Melissa Aldana, Tigran Hamasyan, Linda Oh, Stanley Clarke, and Tom Harrell hire this "rock" guitarist to play all over the world. They obviously did not consult the message board first or we could have helped them make a better decision since we obviously know better.....

Haha!!!! Great post and spot on!

[st.bede]

I find it funny (in a positive way) that some how we all feel like we know what Art is... Art with a capital A... there might be right and wrong universals, and I might argue for such a notion in regards to philosophy but art... there is craft but, craft by itself is only part if the game. If craft was the whole game, I think I would be listening to a lot more Berg, and own a DVD of Wozneck (spelling?). I like stuff that is highly doubtful to be “good” art. It is meaningful to me, and in that is a little truth. Honestly, I believe that when I hear/see/taste something that is beautiful, it is really all about me. It is about what I feel needs to be expressed. Having said all that, I do think people would benefit from a more sound education in the arts. Creating art is one of the most important aspects of being human.

[kris]

There is definitely some Bitches Brew impressions happening there !

Apparently they listened too much to Miles from the 1970s.
I recently listen to Miles from that period / 70's / every day.
These Miles bands were played by jazz geniuses.

[kris]

"You don't listen to much jazz in this style, correct?" Mr. B.

Hi, J,
I listen to Jazz/Classical/Latin music all day when I'm not playing. I, also, listen to "new music" by young musicians every day. Some . . . I like; most I don't. However, music is similar to quality Fiction and Poetry and has to move me intellectually and spiritually. Otherwise, what's the point? Go cut your lawn or water the flowers. To listen to half-baked, boring, predictable cliche-ridden, YT tutorial young musicians with nothing to say ,more than once, serves no purpose for me. And, there IS a contemporary cadre of music aficionados who judge musicianship by the ability to play fast. . . period. Nothing could be further from the truth. Music is an Art not a sport. And, good Art touches the very soul of what it means to be human. Speed has nothing to do with it although it is, to a point, part of a musicians trick bag of musicality. For some people that's difficult to understand and they confuse speed with Art. Especially our younger generation of musicians that are creating a music they call "Jazz" that is heavily Rock-influenced and ,for me, strays further away from the genre and its traditions. Finally, I don't want my diatribe to be construed as a personal attack directed at you but rather a strong difference of opinion about what is "musical" and what is "Jazz." And, there is a reason that less than 1% of people in the US listen to Jazz . . . but if "New Age" Jazz were the only listening option . . . they'd lose me, too. Thanks for your reply.
Marinero

I am not surprised at the opinions of Marinero.
I often come back to listening / catching up / jazz masters.
Somehow that puts me in good mood for the day.
Sometimes I'm bored with distorted guitars in so-called modern jazz.
Best
Kris
ps.
But I'm an old man...

[freud]

Hey thanks for the cool replies.
BTW - I did not think that such an innocent question from the first post is not so innocent and will trigger an interesting discussion about what is jazz and what is not etc.


As I see it, Altura and other people of the younger generation are just an example of the evolution of this musical genre.

[princeplanet]

...
As I see it, Altura and other people of the younger generation are just an example of the evolution of this musical genre.

One man's "Evolution" is the other guy's "Devolution"... dunno, but in answer to an earlier post - I always thought Berg's "Wozzeck" was high Art , with a capital "A" and everything.

So what would I know?

[Gabor]

Maybe it is a bit harsh to insist 'lack of musicality', especially after seeing and referring the Ben Wendel duo video.

Also about the language, the stamp of 'rock guitarist' not quite appropriate, because his playing shows classical influence on that video (Ben Wendel, Standards with Friends #4) I am not stating it is good or bad, just recognizing the language.

One for sure, in tini desk concert video, he is effectively killing the groove, despite the good rythm section, so if one is looking for bebob language or looking for groove in any music, this music will not be his cup of tea.

Still, Packing him into the unmusical rock guitarist box, hardly makes sense.

[dasein]

So many times, I think that people calling something "unmusical" is really code for "I can't really hear/sing/understand this, so therefore the problem is with them, not me."

[Jonah]

Well, as usual on the internet and particularly this place, none of the people making the harshest condemnations of Charles have any documented postings of their own transcendent playing for comparison, so I don’t think their opinion counts for much at all.

Though in this case I do not second the critics' opinion - just to be fair I think it is not necessary that they provide any evidence that they can play or make records.
I do not have to cook or make movies to make personal judgement on the food or film.
One can actually be quite sophisticated connoisseur without exposing himself as a real practice player/performer.
After all they do not say: I can play very well. And vice versa if someone puts out his work in public he should be ready for any opinion.

But in this case the opinion should be well-argumented in words. This is my only demand. One can say: " I don't like it'.
But if one says: it is bad, meaningless, empty, them please make an effort to be argumented otherwise it is insulting.


PS
Though real critics should be good top level artists imho. I remember when I first saw John Ruskin's watercolour drwaings - they were better than those of some artist he wrote about. And he did not consider himself an artist.

[princeplanet]

So many times, I think that people calling something "unmusical" is really code for "I can't really hear/sing/understand this, so therefore the problem is with them, not me."

TBF, no-one said it's a "problem", did they? Sheesh, if someone finds something sounds "unmusical", who is that a problem for? For me personally this kinda discussion only becomes a "problem" when defenders of a kind of music try to make others feel somehow untutored for having different preferences. Let's call it out, the implication is " if you don't like it, it's because you don't get it, or you just haven't had exposure to it". That's not only B.S, but for many here probably downright insulting. And if someone is insulted because someone else finds music they love unmusical, will trying to insult them back make them feel any better? FFS...

Seems we Jazz musicians have no greater emotional intelligence than other kinds of musicians, and maybe Eleanor Roosevelt was right when she said "We only feel truly insulted by an insult if we secretly agree with it". (ouch!)...

[kris]

Can any criticism be taken seriously here ...?
It seems to me that these are more personal comments-impressions.

[Marinero]

This reminds me of what Ben Webster used to say ‘you know … all these young cats, with all those chops, they flash all about their instruments……

….I wish I could do that!’

Hi, C,
You missed the beauty of Ben's remarks if you interpret his statement literally. It is his ultimate "tongue in cheek" expression of his view on Jazz interpretation. And, I can tell you as a former working saxophonist/flutist for 18 years, it is far more difficult to play a ballad with feeling and expression than it is to play half-baked, up-tempo "originals" in Altura's deadpan, typewriter Jazz style. And, the popularity of this "New Music" is why Jazz is the least listened to music in the U.S. Ya wonder where the gigs went?????
Marinero

[Marinero]

So many times, I think that people calling something "unmusical" is really code for "I can't really hear/sing/understand this, so therefore the problem is with them, not me."

So, D,
When I really get serious about Jazz music, I'll give you a call for help on determining what I like and what I don't like . . . on second thought . . . I think I better top off my gas tank before gas goes up again . . .
Marinero

[Jonah]

Can any criticism be taken seriously here ...?
It seems to me that these are more personal comments-impressions.

yes... mostly just chitchat

[PDeville]

Hi, C,
Altura's deadpan, typewriter Jazz style.

I agree, that is what it sounds like. That video called "Standard...." sounds like two people practicing monotone patterns. Which they may be doing, I suppose. I could understand some musicians having an "technical" interest in this. Maybe.

I recognize these modern compositions and performances are creative, and the players seems very skilled. And I have no desire to hear any of it again. I have always liked Chick Corea, but that version of Hot house, I thought was horrid. In particular, the sax and guitar solos.

But, hey, it depends on what you want to hear. And what you have already heard that defines "music" for you.

Seriously, I find the music in the videos un-listenable (except the funky Blanchard piece) to the point of being humorous. But what are these young musicians SUPPOSED to do? If they sounded like Lester Young, would I be more interested? No! Because I've already heard many times, decades ago.

Creative musicians have it tough!

I think anthropology would be a much better career.

[Jimmy blue note]

This music we call jazz is constantly evolving, from moment to moment. Just because a performance is witnessed, or recorded, doesn't necessarily mean that product of the moment accurately encapsulates the process of the artist.
I think music was easier when improvisations were based on shorter forms of the popular song form. The markers of theme and variation were easier to equate. But something happened to the music around the time of Coltrane and Shorter: Process and the evolutionary nature of audience participation/appreciation changed. A lot of listeners who wanted "My Funny Valentine" were put off by the 'scramble eggs' sound of Yes or No. Horn players tended to be even more in the fore than the guitarists of the time, so that divide opened up even more.

I hear modern guitarists who are much more aware and cognizant of say, Joe Henderson, or David Binney than players who embrace a sensibility that cherished the tonal treasures of Harry Leahy or Kenny Burrell (whom I happen to love).
For the more canonic traditional icons, there are a set of beautiful guidelines and sensibilities. For a lot of modern players, every performance is an exploration of possibility in the macro and the micro. Phrases extend further, articulations require mastery of the smaller, songforms might be huge and lines may require knowledge of not only eighth note phrasing but great facility in 16th note textures and intervallic lexicon.

I remember a story about a friend going to see Coltrane. It was a weeklong residence with the great later band with Jimmy. He and some friends went to see Trane on Tuesday. It was impressive and a strong performance but they left saying "He should have stuck to the ballads. He's playing notes like a machine gun. No music."
He went back on Thursday. It was a different story. All those notes were coalescing into distinctive shapes where the intricacy of the phrases started to tell a story if you listened in the micro and the macro. Whether it was Trane or him, it was starting to make sense.
Then he went back on the weekend and Trane's playing was like a tidal wave. Walls of notes, but there were distinctive cadences of breath and story line informed by the unfolding order within those sheets of notes he was creating. There was an evolution to the way he was perceiving note usage that wasn't there at the beginning of the week. He wouldn't have gotten to or transcended that plateau if he hadn't committed himself to leaving behind "Surrey with the fringe on top" and made off to find new unimagined functions to the 12 notes given.

Yes of course there were many now, decades later who say late Trane was a mistake. There are lots of listeners who don't know the music of Wayne Shorter or Lovano or Tim Berne or Marshall Allen or John Gilmore...but those modern cats see jazz as the music of those who have been there, immersed themselves in the cannon, saw the flow of process, moved on and never looked back.
Some younger players have decided to explore those sounds of a new order. It may not be easy to understand, but over time it defines the artform in a beautiful realization. And many young players will realize elements of their own maturity as they come. Those true musicians grow with the music and are always looking forward.
Bryan Baker, Ben Monder, Ted Dunbar, James Emery, Bern Nix, Kurt Rosenwinkel, Frisell are part of a family of movers who wasn't afraid to be misunderstood. It's the story of challenge, and finding the beauty in the satisfaction of understanding.

Heh, there's a lot of music I wouldn't listen to when my wife's around. It might even take a while until I catch on to what's being attempted, but it makes me a better musician for being aware. And I can feel like I have good reasons when I really DON'T like something.

Charles Altura? Engaging, compelling and scary to me. Thanks for posting those!

[Cunamara]

Well, I would say his playing is not without interest but perhaps not quite my cup of tea. The biggest problem I have with him is that he doesn't balance well; he was so loud with the first clip that the sax player is almost inaudible, and it is clearly her band. And in the second clip, he was still louder than everybody else in the band including Terence Blanchard who is, presumably, the person fronting the band. I don't get a sense that he's paying a lot of attention to the other musicians. But, that is just two clips. And, as has been pointed out, he has played with some pretty heavy weight musicians so clearly they are hearing some thing in his playing that they really like. Otherwise they would've hired somebody else.

Putting up John Abercrombie or Kenny Burrell clips creates a very high bar for any guitarist to get over. At the time of those recordings, both of those guys were deeply seasoned masters of the music and perhaps not a fair comparison developmentally. I certainly wouldn't want to be compared to either of those guys! The Abercrombie clip really gets me; Gateway was an astonishing band.

[kris]

It is more or less like that.
I've heard a lot of live versions of one of the standards played by Miles Davis's band ... but my favorite version is the studio version of that standard from the Miles record.
...maybe it wont or it just is.

[ccroft]

...this kinda discussion only becomes a "problem" when defenders of a kind of music try to make others feel somehow untutored for having different preferences. Let's call it out, the implication is " if you don't like it, it's because you don't get it, or you just haven't had exposure to it". That's not only B.S, but for many here probably downright insulting. And if someone is insulted because someone else finds music they love unmusical, will trying to insult them back make them feel any better? ...

That's the nub of the problem with these discussions: the knife cuts both ways. I don't care if someone doesn't like some music that I do like, but when they go to length to explain that music is an Art and not a sporting event, it sounds like something more than voicing a preference. It sounds like: "anyone who enjoys this doesn't know what Music is."

I see it more as "If you don't like it you're not really going to hear it". Kinda like Beaumont with opera (#32). Or me with classic rock of the 60's.

It'd clearly be better if we could leave the insults out on both sides of the divide. But we all have our history here together and often seem to enjoy pushing the buttons. Chit-chat after all :-)

BTW: my early comment about reminding me of the Gateway Trio actually had more to do with the direction of the compositions and overall feel in the OP's first clip. Not entirely about the guitarist. He knows who John is, and he has some years ahead of him.

[Marinero]

I agree, that is what it sounds like. That video called "Standard...." sounds like two people practicing monotone patterns. Which they may be doing, I suppose. I could understand some musicians having an "technical" interest in this. Maybe.

I recognize these modern compositions and performances are creative, and the players seems very skilled. And I have no desire to hear any of it again. I have always liked Chick Corea, but that version of Hot house, I thought was horrid. In particular, the sax and guitar solos.

But, hey, it depends on what you want to hear. And what you have already heard that defines "music" for you.

Seriously, I find the music in the videos un-listenable (except the funky Blanchard piece) to the point of being humorous. But what are these young musicians SUPPOSED to do? If they sounded like Lester Young, would I be more interested? No! Because I've already heard many times, decades ago.

Creative musicians have it tough!

I think anthropology would be a much better career.

Ten-star reply, PD!
Marinero

[charlieparker]

Out of interest, what makes you consider him to be a Rock-based guitarist? It doesn't sound much like Rock to me. His lines may sound a little automated at times but other guitarists of note have had a similar style and advanced technique without being classifed as Rock-based. I do hope you respond as I may be missing something obvious

I think it was the wah-wah pedal he was using with Blanchard. That track definitely felt at least fusiony to me.

[Jazzism]

Though in this case I do not second the critics' opinion - just to be fair I think it is not necessary that they provide any evidence that they can play or make records.
I do not have to cook or make movies to make personal judgement on the food or film.
One can actually be quite sophisticated connoisseur without exposing himself as a real practice player/performer.
After all they do not say: I can play very well. And vice versa if someone puts out his work in public he should be ready for any opinion.

But in this case the opinion should be well-argumented in words. This is my only demand. One can say: " I don't like it'.
But if one says: it is bad, meaningless, empty, them please make an effort to be argumented otherwise it is insulting.

re: the cooking and movie analogy, these topics would be probably be discussed verbally with friends rather than say a cooking / movie Internet forum.
Yes, you can be a sophisticated connoisseur without being a practicing performer/ composer. Musicologists come to mind, which I would think adds value to their opinions.

Of course people that put their work out should be ready for any opinion. However, I don’t think they should be punished for releasing stuff into the public domain, which seems to happen here frequently, by mostly the same people. I didn’t really care for the Blanchard clip, but I didn’t feel an overwhelming urge to publicly lambast the players.

I also think making the effort to provide samples of your own works may create some checks and balances, knowing that people could also critique your work, you may be less hasty to use invective as your first response. Most, including your good self, provide civil reasoned responses. I take issue with the faceless keyboard warrior trolls who provide no demonstrable bonafides talking rubbish, with impunity it seems.

[Jazzism]

Creative musicians have it tough!

I think anthropology would be a much better career.

Is that the career you chose?

[princeplanet]

This music we call jazz is constantly evolving, from moment to moment. Just because a performance is witnessed, or recorded, doesn't necessarily mean that product of the moment accurately encapsulates the process of the artist.
I think music was easier when improvisations were based on shorter forms of the popular song form. The markers of theme and variation were easier to equate. But something happened to the music around the time of Coltrane and Shorter: Process and the evolutionary nature of audience participation/appreciation changed. A lot of listeners who wanted "My Funny Valentine" were put off by the 'scramble eggs' sound of Yes or No. Horn players tended to be even more in the fore than the guitarists of the time, so that divide opened up even more.

I hear modern guitarists who are much more aware and cognizant of say, Joe Henderson, or David Binney than players who embrace a sensibility that cherished the tonal treasures of Harry Leahy or Kenny Burrell (whom I happen to love).
For the more canonic traditional icons, there are a set of beautiful guidelines and sensibilities. For a lot of modern players, every performance is an exploration of possibility in the macro and the micro. Phrases extend further, articulations require mastery of the smaller, songforms might be huge and lines may require knowledge of not only eighth note phrasing but great facility in 16th note textures and intervallic lexicon.

I remember a story about a friend going to see Coltrane. It was a weeklong residence with the great later band with Jimmy. He and some friends went to see Trane on Tuesday. It was impressive and a strong performance but they left saying "He should have stuck to the ballads. He's playing notes like a machine gun. No music."
He went back on Thursday. It was a different story. All those notes were coalescing into distinctive shapes where the intricacy of the phrases started to tell a story if you listened in the micro and the macro. Whether it was Trane or him, it was starting to make sense.
Then he went back on the weekend and Trane's playing was like a tidal wave. Walls of notes, but there were distinctive cadences of breath and story line informed by the unfolding order within those sheets of notes he was creating. There was an evolution to the way he was perceiving note usage that wasn't there at the beginning of the week. He wouldn't have gotten to or transcended that plateau if he hadn't committed himself to leaving behind "Surrey with the fringe on top" and made off to find new unimagined functions to the 12 notes given.

Yes of course there were many now, decades later who say late Trane was a mistake. There are lots of listeners who don't know the music of Wayne Shorter or Lovano or Tim Berne or Marshall Allen or John Gilmore...but those modern cats see jazz as the music of those who have been there, immersed themselves in the cannon, saw the flow of process, moved on and never looked back.
Some younger players have decided to explore those sounds of a new order. It may not be easy to understand, but over time it defines the artform in a beautiful realization. And many young players will realize elements of their own maturity as they come. Those true musicians grow with the music and are always looking forward.
Bryan Baker, Ben Monder, Ted Dunbar, James Emery, Bern Nix, Kurt Rosenwinkel, Frisell are part of a family of movers who wasn't afraid to be misunderstood. It's the story of challenge, and finding the beauty in the satisfaction of understanding.

Heh, there's a lot of music I wouldn't listen to when my wife's around. It might even take a while until I catch on to what's being attempted, but it makes me a better musician for being aware. And I can feel like I have good reasons when I really DON'T like something.

Charles Altura? Engaging, compelling and scary to me. Thanks for posting those!

Oh stop making so much sense, you... you post modern apologist!