Jazz for aficionados
Rok I'm jealous because I never owned a "Nehru Jacket", but that was more into the 60's; I was a turtleneck pendent kind of guy myself. If I could find those bright yellow double knitted bell bottoms with the four inch cuffs, we could do a seance kind of thing over them, I bet they could tell us a lot about the 70's. Enjoy the music. |
In my last post, the question was posed, "Would you like to lead us through the 70's"? I'm still waiting for a definitive answer. Your first sentence seems to say "Yes". Now I will respond to your post as our new leader in this 70's decade. The "bell bottomed trousers" was a statement of fact related to the 70's without a musical connection of any kind, the same as the statement about "fusion", which is what the music Herby was playing at that time is referred to; it was your interpretation that took both statements into a different direction. Are we going to get into the music, or what? Enjoy the music. |
Joe Henderson certainly did not typify the 70's. Miles, "On The Corner" typified the 70's "fusion". In regard to Herbies "Sly", while it was good jazz, it was also "Fusion"; I'm not certain where you're going with "fusion"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkGyBDNG8j4&index=4&list=PLdhGk7gKuZxY7Ui81R2VMyY9EOovHj7r2 Enjoy the music. |
Acman, I enjoyed all of your posts, even the ones I didn't understand; like Cecil Taylor. Maybe I'm wrong, but Rok seemed to want to know what artists made the 70's so different, and that would include all artists associated with fusion and there was every kind of Fusion under the sun. Frogman, since Acman is doing such a good job "instinctively", I suggest he continue on the same way. I'm going to go through that decade the same way I went through it in life at that time; since I was bored with "classic jazz", I welcomed fusion, and I went all over the place, that's the way I'm going to proceed. Frogman, the direction you're going to take according to your last post sounds good to me. Enjoy the music. |
Alex, I liked your clip of Herbie Mann. I saw him in Chicago in 69, he was dressed immaculately; had on a tan continental suit, light brown highly polished boots, and his performance matched his appearance. Nina Simone and Miles were on that same billing. Herbie was first, followed by Nina Simone, and Miles was last. Nina was everything and more than you could imagine her to be. Miles was last and late. Every body was talking about Miles new music, when at last "Here they come". Miles was dressed in a buckskin suede vest with the long fringes hanging down, I don't remember what else he had on; he could have been naked, and I still would not have seen anything but the buckskin vest; "Jokes over, funny Ha Ha, now somebody go and fetch the real Miles". Enjoy the music. |
Rok, how about a little hip 70's violin? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_s7P11NHRk Enjoy the music. |
With the addition of "Fusion", musical genres had gotten so blurred, that I left it to others for definition; is it rock fused with jazz, or jazz fused with rock; at the end of the day, what do you call it? I quit trying to define the music, and simplified everything with one of two categories, "Like, and don't like". These cuts sounded all right to me. I wonder if "Learsfool" can boogie to this one; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MFbn8EbB4k I kind of like the beat on this one; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgiS0Pr3BX8 I just might catch this train; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2It6_FGJXw Enjoy the music. |
Rok, I never could dance, but I like to go to a "juke joint", put some quarters in the box and watch em git down, There was a guy that could do some moves to this one you would not believe; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO91BtMIciU&list=PL5364D1FBFE077590 Enjoy the music. |
Frogman, I'm glad you wanted to go through this decade in detail; while I wasn't satisfied with the music at that time, since then I've had a change of heart, I'll give you an example; I was so in the habit of buying "Donald Byrd" that I just picked up any new album he had out. After I bought "Places and Spaces", I wanted my money back; not because the music was so bad, but because it was so different from what I expected. Can you imagine turning up a bottle of wine and tasting whisky, or vice versa; WTF would be your reaction in either case. Now I find that same music interesting because I accept it for what it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vr-E7asw2c Donald Byrd can most certainly go into the category of one of the most creative musicians when you examine his whole body of works. Here's another one he did when he was in that mood; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbToIgl6dnU Enjoy the music. |
Rok, in order to understand that music, you have to first go to the "Misty mid region of wier", then it will all come clear; that's where the picture on the album cover is. Since the jazz as in Nica's book is right down here on the ground, there is no way the two can connect. You couldn't get into his music because you didn't have an adequate mode of transportation to get to the "Misty mid region of Wier"; if you understand what I just said, you might be able to understand Jean Luc ponty's music. Enjoy the music. |
Frogman, according to some, "Fusion" is not jazz. Since I'm not in the defining business, I'll leave that to you, and anyone else who's posting on this thread; but, the 70's most certainly was the decade of "Fusion". When almost all of the "high profile" artists in jazz were engaged in some form of fusion, even Horace Silver, just not the same kind as Herbie, how can you call it any other way? Enjoy the music. |
Frogman, I have this LP titled "Silver and Percussion", I like it, but since we've engaged in this conversation about "Fusion", I don't know whether or not we can call it "Fusion". Since on one side it fuses elements of Native American with jazz, is this fusion; and on the other side it combines elements of African music. Although this was done many times in the past, we never called it "Fusion", and that's why I was reluctant to get into this decade; because of all the con-fusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGivttfAGlU&list=PL872DDBDD38965152 Enjoy the music. |
The 70's was a tough decade for pure jazz, Bobby Hutcherson was one of the few artists who was still trying; here he is with Woody Shaw. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia08GLq4Fmg Enjoy the music. |
Rok, here's a cool groove with Jutta Hipp and Zoot Sims; with a name like that, she had to be "Hip". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE6UiQ_z4jM Enjoy the music. |
Chico Hamilton has long been one of my favorite musicians; always changing and forever creative. I was curious to see how fusion affected him. "Perigrinations" is an album he did in 75; as usual, his music soothed this savage beast. It was good to see that another one of my old standby musicians stayed in the groove while other trollys jumped the tracks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWB9ZN1lFLU&index=1&list=PLLC1ieH9IXOIXriuKjaPY_AI8v99Qfg5g Here's "Abdullah And Abraham", can't you just see em riding them camels across the dunes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL5wW5gqceE&list=PLLC1ieH9IXOIXriuKjaPY_AI8v99Qfg5g&index=6 Enjoy the music. |
Chazro, I Went back over the postings to see if you ever posted anything unrelated to your love affair with Rok, and I was pleasantly surprised to see that you made some worth while contributions. "Birds got to fly, fish got to swim"; by now, everyone should know that Rok's got be Rok's. I'm not saying that is good or bad; I'm saying this is the "jazz show", and not the "Rok show", but it's being turned into "The Rok Show". When two guys are rolling in the mud, it's hard to tell the good guy from the bad guy. Enjoy the music. |
We began to form our musical tastes from the time when we were jumping up and down in our baby crib after hearing our favorite music; some of us even did the "Baby Boogie". Later on in high school and college our musical tastes became more defined. What years we went are very important. My musical foundation in jazz was laid in the summer of 56 at my cousin's apartment in Chicago. I'm sure everyone has heard the story about the blind men and the elephant; the one who felt the legs said the elephant was like a pillar, the one who felt the tail said the elephant was like a rope, the one who felt the trunk said the elephant was like a tree trunk. When it comes to music we are similar to those blind men, and we believe our perception of reality is "The Reality", when it's only our perception of reality. Once you realize all of this, you understand how we all can be so different; the problem lies in not allowing room for the other man's perception. Enjoy the music. |
Frogman, I'm quite familiar with the "Mahavishnu Orchestra" containing the dynamic duo of John McLaughlin and Jean Luc Ponty. "Emerald Green Beyond" is one of my favorites by them. Here's "Lila's Dance"; https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lila%27s+dance How about "Can't Stand Your Funk"; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VsyW7ywXaU Billy Cobham, was an ideal drummer for fusion, as displayed on these albums. This is the kind of fusion people think of when you mention the 70's. Enjoy the music. |
Check out the boogie babys, they can get down; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgXPl3XM_NA Enjoy the music. |
Frogman, even when you say "objective reality", whose objective reality are we referring to, and who is to be the final judge in regard to this reality. It's only in mathematics can we have one objective reality. There is no stranger reality than the one in which we live every day. I prefer the total unreality of the 60's when we didn't have to face reality. Unfortunately time is a reality that's totally inescapable, and it's finally caught up to many people including yours truly; but I'll still savor these final moments by enjoying good music, speaking of which, I think it's time to go into the 80's. Enjoy the music. |
I think fusion is where jazz lost it's definition. Before the 70's, when someone said "jazz", you knew what they were talking about, but after then, it could mean almost anything. Presently, the music that fits the jazz definition sounds like an imitation of the jazz of the 50's and 60's; something I'm not especially turned on by. Pat Metheney caught my ear after the 70's; his music was new, fresh, and kind of abstract, I liked it. Whether or not it was jazz, I couldn't care less; others can argue that point. "As Falls Wichita, So Falls Wichita Falls" was probably the first album I bought, this is quite abstract; in spots it's flat and dull, like the Missouri plains but for the most part it's interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwfVarzG1js "Offramp" was another album that caught my attention. "Are You Going With Me" and "Au lait" were two of my favorite cuts on this album. I don't know what you would call the dreamy and abstract "Au Lait", but I like it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh8bpl5KCPg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b0CHysDsjw Enjoy the music. |
O-10, no need for con-fusion; while a marriage of any two styles can be called a fusion, its probably wise to keep the term to mean jazz-rock fusion which is as most understand it. Frogman, I'm now confused more than ever? We can skip what Rok said, nothing I heard fits your definition of fusion. Enjoy the music. |
In case you don't remember the 80's, I'll give you a few names to get things started. George Adams was a passionate voice in Charles Mingus last band 1973 - 76. He can be heard on "Live At The Village Vanguard", tenor sax and flute. Some of the names from the 80's are: Steve Coleman, alto sax; Paquito D' Rivera, sax and clarinet; Stanley Jordan, guitar; Bobby McFerrin, vocalist; David Sanborn, alto sax; John Scofield, guitar, and the Yellowjackets, an instrumental group. Here's one that caught my ear by the "Yellowjackets". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiVk-SDy8cA These are just some names to help you get started, I'm sure you have favorites that you wish to add. Enjoy the music |
Billy Bang was a "Nam vet" who never freed himself of the demons left by that war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVJMOpIHBgc |
During the 80's I just collected good sounding music, that was classified as jazz although it didn't fit the classical definition of jazz; meaning to sound similar to the jazz of the 50's and 60's, but it was original. After that, the latest music out called "jazz" took on a similarity that was too much for me to take; it forsook all originality in order to be "jazz". It wasn't till quite recently, meaning since I started this thread that I began going back in time. Unlike Frogman and Acman, I absolutely do not like current music that sounds like 50's and 60's jazz; it sounds like someone trying to imitate the music of that era. Now, thanks to "you tube", I can go back in time and still get music that I've never heard before; that's because the giants of that era recorded so much more music besides what was most popular at that time. Although soon I will have all of the music recorded by the giants of that era, I won't run out because jazz is popular all around the globe; consequently it will be Burmese jazz, or Japanese jazz, but it'll still be new. Frogman, and some others seem to think or feel that musicians who go to the best schools, and progress to the point where they have developed the highest skill level on their chosen instrument, can exceed the jazz made by the giants of the 50's and 60's; but I don't believe they can. While that seems illogical, music is not a science with a mathematical preciseness, it's a lot more subjective than objective; for example, I say no one communicated abstract emotions through their music better than "Bobby Timmons", and this is what jazz is about; "communicating abstract emotions". Of course it's about a lot more than that, but that's at the top. Frogman says there is such a thing as "objective reality" involved in jazz, and I disagree, but if he and others that think like him could give an example of "objective reality" in regard to jazz, I could be persuaded to change. Enjoy the music. |
Frogman, as far as "Billy Bangs" is concerned, absolutely nothing you and your friends think is relevant; that's because it is "my" reality, subjective reality though it may be, it's still "my" reality, and that's why there can never be an "objective" reality in jazz. Your analogy of 2=2=5 is null and void; that's because you are using an "objective" analogy in reference to a "subjective" subject, which is jazz. Enjoy the music. |
Frogman, when you are alone in your "audiophile" listening room, playing an LP on your perfectly adjusted TT, with one of the best cartridges, basking in a holographic sound stage that makes your listening room seem like a space much larger than what it is, you are experiencing a "subjective reality". The average person sitting in your same sweet spot might not experience anything. I never mention anything about my rig to a non audiophile (who's in the listening room on a purely experimental basis) and they just go on babbling while the music is playing, never do I mention anything about the rig. "Subjective Reality" is what all audiophiles live everyday without even thinking about it. Enjoy the music. |
Alex, nothing is more important than communicating the truth as you perceive it, and you do that quite well. Your perceptions are correct. From what I can gather about audiophiles since I've been here, is that they are very much unaware of things outside of that arena. "Cataclysmic" changes have occurred in the economy of this country since I was on the south side of Chicago in 56. Those changes have affected everything, including music. You are correct in your perceptions about the changes in society that are reflected by music. Once upon a time there were many places of entertainment that hired musicians, now there are relatively few when compared to times past, this means it's much harder for a musician to make a living; that and other factors account for radical changes in music over time. For whatever reasons, we are both in harmony in regard to the "jazz" of the 50's and 60's. Enjoy the music. |
Frogman, our problem in regard to the way we perceive "jazz" is becoming clear; to me, composition is every thing, to you it's how well the musician blows his horn. For example, Michael Brecker blows a beautiful horn, but I didn't care for the composition. In the case of Wayne Shorter, I don't like short clipped phrases (Miles liked short clipped phrases in his last music) While the Wayne Shorter clip was of the "definitive jazz" type, I've gone past that; now I'm more into music without classification, like this Santana for example; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bJouVEzr0k Enjoy the music. |
Frogman, on the issue of "Subjective Reality" I insist that we not agree to disagree, but come to a definitive conclusion. Subjective reality and how is it different from objective reality? Objective reality refers to the reality outside your mind (in the physical world) – the objects and events that make up the “raw data.” Subjective reality refers to the reality inside your mind. It is the meaning you assign to things and events. People see different things even if they are looking at the same object.All objects, dreams ideas and “truths” are different for each person. I’ve put “truths” in quotes because as you’ll see, “truth” is subjective! Essentially we all live in different worlds; we may have things in common with other people, but because of our background and our subjective interpretation of the world – our unique perspective – our world can be polar opposite from the person sitting next to us. The Perception Game Where you Imagine yourself and thirty of your friends and neighbors standing in a row, each person an arm’s length from the next and facing in the same direction. In front of everyone is an object, say a huge marble rectangle – a modern sculpture rising thirty feet into the sky. Everybody sees the rectangle. But they see it from a different perspective. One person may see a monolith because they are facing the broad side of the rectangle; to them, the sculpture is imposing and intimidating. The person next to them sees the same monolith but it is exciting because he is a mountain climber. Another, down the line, will see the corner between the broad side and the narrow side; to them, the sculpture may appear very interesting since the quality of light is different on each side of the sculpture. Another person sees only the narrow side of the rectangle and sees something absurdly tall, something that looks like it will topple easily. Tall people see the rectangle from a different angle than short people. Subjective reality: beauty or danger?Each person is 100% correct in what they perceive. But they don’t necessarily understand the points of view of anyone else in the line of people because NO ONE CAN SEE PRECISELY WHAT OTHERS SEE. Can you see how mind-blowing this is? The gray area between objective and subjective realities occurs when you assign a meaning to something that exists in your mind – such labeling your house as “beautiful.” When you start talking to other people about it you bring your subjective reality into the realm of the objective. If you believe something is beautiful, you will experience it as something beautiful. If someone believes your house is the ugliest thing ever built, their experience when seeing your home will not be pleasant. Each person’s experience depends on the meaning they assign to objective reality. This is how misunderstandings and differences of opinion occur. You may think “this house is beautiful” while another believes it’s the ugliest. In each person’s reality, the house is perceived differently. Some people will agree with you. In their experience, the house is beautiful. Other people won’t care one way or the other – in their subjective world, your house isn’t important enough to label. This is what’s meant by “beauty is in the eye of the beholder!” Beauty is a purely subjective concept. Enjoy the music. |
"Aficionados" and devotees of the 50's and 60's; I just got an album you should have if you don't already have it. Just when I thought I had every thing in those two decades worth having, I discover that I don't, and that's the beauty of it. I don't think of vocals as "must haves" ; consequently I'm probably missing quite a few, but anything, and everything by Clifford Brown, Clark Terry, Harold Land, Richie Powell, Max Roach, and George Morrow when they were at the top of their game, is a must; "Dinah Jams", has all of them and more. Enjoy the music. |
Rok, I know you're out there! I want you and other aficionados to know that I'm "studiously" adding to my collection, and economy of purchases is of the utmost importance. Before, when I tried to stay current, it turned out to be a big waste; current musicians seem to capable of only one very good cut per album; this meant the rest of the album was a waste. Acquiring almost everything by any one musician also proved to be uneconomical; that's because even the greatest had some flops; however, I've discovered one musician this might not apply to, Lee Morgan is his name. Not until I began adding his albums did I discover that maybe it is possible for a musician not to have a bad album; I'm not talking about anything he was a sideman on, but the albums he put out and led. In the past there was no way of sampling every cut on an album before you bought it, but now, thanks to "you tube", it's possible to sample other cuts beside the one that made you decide to purchase this particular album. While in Lee Morgan's case, this only goes for the genre "Hard Bop", that still covers a lot of territory, and adds a lot of music without waste. This aficionado is on his way to Nirvana; that's Heaven to the uninitiated. Enjoy the music. |
Rok, Jeremy Denk, and other contemporary pianists, have never heard of "parallel thinking" or "coincidence"; two pieces of music can sound similar in spots and have absolutely no relationship. Just like people, music has a birth and people who caused it to be born; this means it also has a history. "African Americans" brought jazz into existence; I hope we can agree on that. While presently people from all over the globe contribute to that existence, it's birth and history can not be denied. In regard to music in general, the same can be said for it; meaning that it has parents who represent that particular genre of music. There are songs that you can not hear unless you have sang them; I said that in reference to the "blues", no I'm not referring to the "Delta Blues" which is quite specific, but the Blues in general. I made that statement so you can relate to where I'm coming from; the same applies all around the globe; unless you are from where the music is from, you can't hear it to the depth and degree of someone who is. Jazz is a highly "subjective" and abstract art form that was closely related to gospel and blues during it's early years. Presently, after so many contributions, it's lost definition (according to me). Presently, the music I like, I choose not to define if it's current, meaning in the last decade or so; it just falls under two classes; like and don't like. Since music is related to the people who brought it into existence, I find it quite difficult to believe there can be any relationship between jazz and classical; other than they're both genres of music; after all, classical was born in Europe, and we know where jazz was born. When you go back to birth and existence, there can not possibly be two more unrelated genres of music; consequently, there can be no such thing as "proto-jazz" in reference to classical music. Enjoy the music. |
