Jazz for aficionados

What do you think about this group;


      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjKllGysNxw

Enjoy the music.

I think, they are not bad, could be a little more sophisticated. For some reason I liked the last two tracks most. I checked their other albums as well. I like tribal ambient music.
You could try Steve Roach/Jorge Reyes - Vine Bark&Spore album. I play it quite often as a background music. It doesn't call to attention to it, not invasive in any way, creates certain mindscapes and surroundings. You don't have to listen to it in a usual sense, it is more that it will listen to you.

Those must have been the one's with the "didgeridoos"; I like that instrument best with music other than native; but I have some didgeridoo music from as far back as when they could first record anything, it has noisy insects in the background, as you would have in the field.

This is all I could find by Steve Roach.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JiwJXEp2G0

I like it.

That didgeridoo music I have is from over 100 years ago, and it's about as authentic as you can get. That's when I was into primitive cultures, and reading books over 100 years old.
According to those books, the "Aborigines" could communicate telepathically; that certainly beats telephone.

The music we've been discussing is the kind that you have to be in a certain groove to appreciate.


Enjoy the music.

Vine bark&spore is available from amazon.
Telepathic communication would beat anything I can imagine. Primitive cultures or primal basic cultures?

****I wonder if Frogman has it in his collection?****

Funny you should ask; prescient, actually!

We have a cabin in the country. One of our closest "neighbors" deep in the woods has been an abandoned house with completely overgrown grounds, a roof that is literally caving in and letting the rain in. Doesn’t seem as if anyone had been in there for many years and there are posters from the Sheriff’s office on the door. About a year ago, our dog Artie decided to wander off into the woods and chased a wood chuck into the garage of this house by squeezing himself under the garage door. He would not come out of the garage and I was forced to pry the door slightly open and squeeze myself in and retribe my beagle. When inside the garage and after locating my dog I noticed, to my amazement, three long shelves holding lp’s. I couldn’t resist and I went throught the lp’s. Most were in horrible condition, covered with dust and debris. There, amongst the Grand Funk Railroad, Bee Gees and Mantovani Orchestra records were the only two that I was remotely interested in: Cat Stevens "Tea For The Tillerman" and, yes, Santana "Abraxas".........I did the unthinkable. Oh my God, I lost sleep that night.......I took them!!!

In terrible shape, but it was kind of fun revisiting those two records that I listened to so many times while in High School forty five years (!) ago in various states of mild inebriation. The feeling of nostalgia was great. It also made it starkly clear why I never replaced those records after losing, or.....them. I like Santana "Abraxas", but, to be blunt and brief, I have no interest (or time) to listen to it when there are so many records of the caliber of music by Coltrane, Stravinsky, Miles, Herbie Hancock and many of the hundreds of records that have been discussed here. It is music evocative of a certain period in popular music and features Santana’s soulful playing; but, in the scheme of music at large, not on a particularly high level compositionally nor instrumentally......for me. I feel no need to buy a replacement copy.

So, O-10, I did have the record in my collection while a teenager (😉) and, recently, for about two weeks until guilt got the better of me and I actually took the records back for the woodchucks to use as they please. So, I hope that answers your question.

Now, O-10, why must you always personalize matters?

****It really takes some gall to make a statement like that; who told him he was qualified to make such a definitive statement?****

I find it particularly curious that someone who hides behind the "it’s subjective" mantra should have a problem with someone else’s opinion. What’s good for the goose....." No? "Deeply offended"? Really? Eventhough I acknowledged the good aspects of that record? I will limit my response to that to question marks lest I, myself, make things personal.

O-10, there is nothing that is not accurate about what I wrote about Zappa/Santana. I have no desire to argue with you about music without, at least, a semblance of desire on your part for substance and depth as has happened so many times previously when there has been disagreement. I could outline in substantive detail why I made the comment that I made; if there is a sincere desire on your part to understand it. In the meantime, I will point you in the direction of Santana’s own comments in a link that I posted and which, apparently, you didn’t bother to read. His comments corroborate exactly what I wrote:

http://www.afka.net/Articles/1995-01_Tmershi_Duween.htm

****I told him many times that music was "subjective" but I see it still hasn’t stuck.****

In response, I’d like to, with your permission and partly in jest, use your own words:

++++It really takes some gall to make a statement like that; who told him he was qualified to make such a definitive statement? ++++

Of course, since YOU said it then it must be Gospel. But, .....wait!, I seem to recall a recent post of yours when, in a moment of clarity, you wrote: "music is both subjective and objective".