Jazz for aficionados
O-10, agree about Jefferson. Love that Horace Silver tune "Filthy MacNasty". And what a great trumpet solo. After James Moody's exuberance everything relaxes with a beautifully tasty solo by someone who, as much as anybody, deserves the title of "most sadly unrecognized". Dave Burns was a great bebopper who few have even heard about. http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=5ebeHafmsDA |
Nice! Beautiful playing by Burns. Hint of a Lee Morgan influence and I love it when a player starts a solo without any ambiguity as he does at 1:50; a simple three note statement, concise and to the point as if saying "check this out". Amazing how players of this caliber are forgotten sometimes. Thanks! |
O-10, Rahsaan was a genius. Unfortunately, playing two or three instruments simultaneously was perceived as gimmicky by some. That clip demonstrates that he was a virtuoso instrumentalist by any standard; double and triple tonguing, circular breathing and command of the extreme ranges of the instrument. He had it all while still projecting a "let it all hang out" musical attitude. An extraordinary performance. Thanks! |
Acman3, fantastic clips! Why some insist that jazz needs saving is beyond me. There is an entire crop of young players pushing the boundaries while keeping the connection to the past and it augers well for the future of the music. At the very least it's proof that something is in the works and we will look back and see this as important transition period. Personally, I look forward to what is around the corner. Thanks for the clips. |
Another example of the health of jazz. One of the very best of the new crop; and certainly the best on the baritone. https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=7Uvo2I2cyjg Merry Christmas to all! |
Schubert, don't short change yourself; you are an astute listener. When I said that jazz doesn't need saving I meant it as a counter to the mistaken idea that quality jazz is not being produced by new young musicians; that the quality is dying. There will always be great new players and, as you point out the, players that are better than ever in some ways. The music will, of course, continue to evolve style-wise as it always has. The sad state of the size of audiences for jazz and higher art in general is a different matter. However, I don't agree that the audiences are ever-declining. There are many indications that, at the very least, the numbers have stabilized and there has actually been an increase over the last few years as well as other signs that are reason to feel positive about the future. Some interesting reading re the data: http://www.jazzartsgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/JAITicketBuyerStudy_ExecutiveSummary.pdf http://arts.gov/sites/default/files/NEA-Research-Report-31.pdf |
Sad news this week. Buddy DeFranco passed away at the age of 91 this past Wednesday. A fantastic player he was the first clarinetist, and certainly more than anyone, to convincingly take the clarinet out of the "swing" mold and into bebop. https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=LmxHbHrpNHA |
Schubert, while I don't agree that Frank Sinatra was a bad joke, I don't think you are delusional nor full of it. I never cared much for Sinatra's musical persona but recognize why he is considered so great by so many. He had a very straightforward delivery of a song with little embellishment or vocal affectations and a fantastic sense of rhythm. I have always preferred the young Sinatra from the '40's, before his voice got so husky and "masculine"; and before his Vegas "baby" and "broads" persona took over along with the sense that he was doing the listener a favor by letting him/her hear him sing. This is clearly a subjective reaction, but it has been there for me in most of what he did from the '50s forward. I often found his singing simply joyless; unlike a singer like Tony Bennett or Mel Torme. Sinatra and Torme were two totally different types of singers, and while I would never say that Torme was "better" than Sinatra I am surprised that Learsfool considers him only a pleasant voice. Compared to singers of that generation, Torme could swing his ass off and was a true jazz singer who could scat like no other with the exception of Ella. I definitely understand your reaction to both Sinatra and Torme. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4vZlyfa28iQ |
As with most things of great value, music, the artists and their personalities can be very complicated; how and if that personality is reflected in the performance is equally complicated. With some artists their work is an open window into their personality while with some their work is paradoxically different. Coltrane was a deeply spiritual individual and this was clearly projected in his playing. Louis Armstrong was always jovial as an individual and I can think of no other player that could more easily put a smile on one's face by the way he played. Yet, you have a beautiful player like Stan Getz who was known to be a very difficult and abrasive individual and some would say a jerk; yet, his playing could be so gentle. I think Sinatra was one of those performers whose personality was clearly reflected in their performance. Alexatpos, I also think that a distinction needs to be made between a difficult and unpleasant personality and a troubled one. You are correct, many great artists were/are troubled individuals. Some would say that is the reason they need to perform; as an outlet for their troubles. But a troubled personality is not necessarily an unpleasant one and just as we each react differently to a given performer's musical style, we each react differently to an individual's personality traits. Schubert made what, at first, seemed like a pretty wild comparison: Mel Torme compared to a Mozart concerto; and, earlier, his dislike of Sinatra with a reference to Wagner. They are actually pretty apt comparisons and give me an insight into how he listens to music. Generalizations to be sure, and obvious issues of relative greatness aside, the music of Mozart can be characterized as uplifting, buoyant and lively and generally easy to listen to. I think that Mel Torme's singing style could easily be characterized the same way. Wagner was known to be an extremely controlling individual and perfectionist with a strong sense of self-importance; Sinatra has been often described the same way. I think that, wether we realize it or not, when we don't like an artist or his music we are sometimes reacting to that artist's individual persona. |
****Incredible album.....**** Yup! The tune "Giant Steps" would literally be a giant step for improvisers on all instruments; an amazing test of a player's ability to make music over an incredibly complex chord progression like never seen before. Even the great Tommy Flanagan struggles with the changes when he solos. He is tentative from the very beginning and one gets the feeling that he is saying "what the f&%k?", and by 3:30 simply gives up and just comps them. Hard to say wether they planned it this way, but Coltrane then takes over again like the phenom he was and finishes what should have been Flanagan's solo. Amazing stuff! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xr0Tfng9SP0 |
Jeff Beck is incredible. If you like that, check this out: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw_zQIFAI4U Amazing guitar solo; simple, tasty; and no pick, for that great singing sound. |
A heart warming story. There's one thing that there can be no disagreement about and that is the depth of Wynton's love of the music and his huge heart. http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/jazz-greats-converge-hospital-play-happy-birthday-94-yo-maestro/ https://www.facebook.com/wyntonmarsalis/posts/10152832454392976 |
There's jazz, and then there's Jazz: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fBQxsQlPDkU Btw, I agree re 2015, Jafant. |
You're welcome. Recorded in 1961 and close to the magic year 1959; an amazing time for jazz. 1961 was also the year that Oliver Nelson's "Blues And The Abstract Truth" was recorded. It's interesting to note how much Hubbard's solo on "Society Red" sounds like his solo on "Stolen Moments" from "BATAT" as an indication of where he was at in his development as an improviser. Dexter was at his peak and sounds incredible. Glad you liked it. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RbaGDDbpcQ4 |
New for 2015. And an interesting peek into the creative process of jazz; featuring, among others, the greatest living jazz drummer: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=edLWmyTegvk |
****Since The Frogman says the regime frowns on Jazz, there might not be that much NEW, to discover. Except the expatriates.**** To put it in perspective: it is illegal in Cuba to listen to American radio stations. Cubans can tune in to Miami based radio stations a mere 90 miles away, but they have to do it in secret and risk repercussions if caught. Now, rest assured, there is some jazz (real jazz, not Latin jazz) being played in Cuba, but you won't find it in the clubs and certainly not on youtube; big no-no. As far as Latin-jazz goes there is plenty of it there of the type that we hear here and has been posted; but, that is not the problem. Some of the expatriates left Cuba because they wanted to play JAZZ; not Latin-jazz and not Latin-jazz that was "sanctioned" by the government. Note that the tune being played and sung by the bar band in your clip (yes, that is in Cuba) is a Bossa-nova; I doubt that "It Don't Mean A Thing If....." is on their song list. |
No problem moving on, but IMO there is MUCH more to add; it would be a mistake to think that there is no more new Cuban music worth exploring. Much of it may not be jazz (or even Latin Jazz; whatever that is) as we may think of it, but the musical heritage of Cuba is huge and practically inexhaustible. The Fox in the video of the bar band singing Girl From Ipanema is an OK singer, but it would be a shame to end the discussion of new Cuban music with that; nothing new about that music, and not a particularly good performance. I think this is much more representative of the kind of creativity that can be found in Cuba (worth noting is that in Cuban music it is very difficult to separate the dance from the music): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xJMTA3Ay5FI |
O-10, "The Offering" will not be available until the end of Nov; 9/24, I believe, his 88th birthday. I may accept that nomination; maybe :-). It will be available on vinyl. Today's surprise: ****Today's Surprise!! World Saxophone Quartet -- DANCES AND BALLARDS**** First Stravinsky, now WSQ. See what happens when you hang out with the wrong crowd? :-) Seriously, not the most avante-garde "avante-garde" music by a long shot, but pretty adventurous stuff. That particular clip starts out pretty "inside" and then takes off. I am very partial to the sound of a saxophone quartet. It can be a thing of beauty particularly playing Bach where it can sound remarkably like an organ. I don't know if I can stand all this agreement: Kleiber. Clearly a subjective matter to a great extent, but without a doubt one of the very best. Perhaps the best. His Beethoven 5th is unparalleled. Corea. Beautiful record from a player with a very distinctive sound and sense of swing. "Ceora". One of my favorite tunes and one with sentimental value. One of the very first I learned after starting to play the saxophone as a kid; after first starting to play classical clarinet. So, in reality, while I never left jazz nor classical, a more accurate description is that I went back to classical. Previn. What can one add to what has already been said about him? Amazing musician and true giant; up there with the likes of Leonard Bernstein as an example of great versatility at an extremely high level. I agree with all that has been said about his playing; I particularly like the "less bombastic Oscar" comment. There have been a few, somewhat lower profile musicians who have "left jazz" to focus on classical. Two that come to mind are: Larry Combs, recently retired principal clarinetist with the Chicago Symphony who is (was) also a fine jazz saxophonist and former member of Chuck Mangione's jazz quintet; and Ron Reuben, recently retired bass clarinetist with the Philadelphia Orchestra. For the geeks: The opening clarinet solo in "Rhapsody" is, without a doubt, one of the classic "tests" of any serious clarinet player's mettle; right up there with a jazz player's ability to play over the changes to Trane's "Giant Steps". To be able to play the famous "s(h)mear" with great style and still sound controlled and not like one is about to "fall off the tracks" is incredibly difficult. Here is my favorite performance of that solo by the aforementioned Larry Combs in possibly the best recorded version of this great piece (in its original "jazz-band" version). Is it a coincidence that it's a great version of the solo and that Combs is also a jazz player? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KPL19IgsEHc&list=PLIoTSU58PJgr7GVXju5V-hr9RgHWX9Uve |
I have to agree with O-10 re Valaida Snow. A wonderful talent, great entertainer; entertainer in an era when "jazz" was SUPPOSED to be unabashedly entertaining. Of her many talents, I like her singing the best; the most convincing. Her trumpet playing was very good, but I don't think Pops had anything to worry about. "World's second best trumpet player"? I don't think so; a bit of hyperbole in the interest of entertainment and showmanship (showomanship?). Great and fascinating story! I have to disagree, however, about that performance of "Brazil"; great classic tune. I have not seen the movie "Brazil", but I have a sneaky suspicion that this version of the tune is supposed to somehow complement the movie. Taken on its own, I find this rendition cheesy (like the movie?) and the singing downright awful; sorry. BTW, I wrote the above just before reading Rok's comments about "Brazil". Eventhough mine appear to be much more negative, I think we are actually saying the same thing. Here is the composer himself playing his composition with a typically Brazilian vibe; joyful (Carnaval) and just a touch of melancholy. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V8goep7fVXk |
Some thoughts about recent commentary: I could not agree more with the comment that the thread loses focus and is not as enjoyable if the commentary jumps around too much; I think the reasons why are obvious. However, I think that this distinction needs to be made: I don't think that the act of jumping around, unto itself, is a bad thing or a distraction. It is possible and potentially interesting to touch upon and show examples of, for instance, a player from the '40's who influenced a player active in the '60's. The "influence lineage" is something that has been missing here IMO; and, there has been active resistance to it as well as active resistance to the music of certain eras such as 20's, 30's and even early 40's; specifically early swing, swing and big-band eras. The issue that I have with that approach is that not enough time is spent on any one topic (or artist) to really do it justice. I have felt this way almost from the beginning of the thread. A recent example is, in fact, the recent "new Cuban music" topic. O-10, I must say that I was surprised that after you proposed the topic and mentioned The Afro-Cuban All-Stars, that you did not post a single example of either that group or any other group; and, there was scant commentary about any of the postings until the subject was deemed exhausted a short time later. That is a great example of a topic that is abandoned way too soon (and I said so), especially given the huge numbers of musical examples available of that very rich musical heritage. I think that it's going to be a worthwhile challenge (but certainly not impossible, and certainly potentially rewarding) to take a more pedagogical approach to the discussions as opposed to the one that was the stated one at the thread's inception: that of discussing simply one's favorite artists. I certainly welcome (should not be surprising) a more comprehensive look at the various subjects and a more in-depth analysis (yup, that IS what is being proposed; like it or not). One can't have it both ways. In order to dig deeper into any one subject we have to (to a degree) put aside our dislike of certain genres and certain styles of playing for the sake of gaining a deeper understanding of how it all ties together; and it all certainly does. Another issue worth noting, and one that would become much more clear if the above approach is taken, is that I don't think enough distinction is made between great artists and important artists. This is not to suggest that the "merely great" artists should not be covered; obviously they deserve to be and "ties it all together". What I mean is that artists like Previn, Snow and Scott are great artists; however, IMO they are not important artists in the sense that they were not particularly influential artists. Determining wether they are important or "merely great", and the reasons why, can be one of the most enjoyable aspects of a thread such as this; personal "like" is a different matter. What makes an artist an important artist? Scott was an important artist from the standpoint of her contributions to civil rights (and what a beauty she was!), but as far a her contribution to music one has to be pragmatic and acknowledge that she was great, but she was no Art Tatum; her mentor and a truly important artist. IMO, the notion of the either undiscovered or under-appreciated artist is overly-romanticized and generally exaggerated. Of course there have been artists that for whatever personal (or otherwise) reason did not get his/her due; but, the art world has a way of "separating the wheat from the chaff". The truly important artists will (almost without exception) be noticed; sometimes in spite of themselves. Again, we're not talking about merely good/great artists, but the important ones. I think that this perspective can be a very good and useful backdrop for these discussions. |
****What makes an artist an important artist? **** I thought I answered that question in the paragraph that followed. Put simply, it's an artist who was influential in shaping the direction of the art. I think that the Tatum/Scott example is a good one. Scott was an extremely accomplished player and worth listening to. Tatum was a master who influenced not only Scott, but the direction of piano playing style as a whole; he's an important artist. Rok, you shouldn't short change yourself too readily. I'm not quite sure what a "true aficionado" is, but you clearly love the music. |
****So in Jazz, we have Jazz, and then something or someone comes along and changes the way that pre-existing Jazz is played. That's 'influence'.**** Rok, you have it exactly backwards; or, at least, only partially (a small part) correct. Yes, someone like Bird comes along and changes the direction of jazz, but the impetus for that change is everything that came before Bird; THAT is the influence (on Bird). And the process continues: Bird was one of Trane's main influences (by Trane's own admission). Of course each player brings new and unique things to the table; but, of there had been no Bird, there would not have been a a Coltrane. And that is the reason that there is always worthwhile jazz including presently; it is an extension of what came before it. Actually, there have been many who, even if not revolutionizing jazz in a sweeping way the way that Bird and Trane did, certainly influenced the change in the overall direction of jazz; it is a matter of degree. ****The answer to this lies with the unwashed masses. So, as you stated it, a player can be great and not important, and important, but not great. And of course, both and neither.**** We have been here before and the answer is the same: nonesense. I have asked for a more in depth explanation of your stance previously and I have never gotten one. Perhaps that is why you like to consider part of the unwashed masses. Hate to break it to you, you are not part of the unwashed masses. The unwashed don't listen to Mingus nor Beethoven :-) As I have said before, by your definition the best art is The Beatles (I like them btw), Michael Jackson, Kenny G, Madonna etc. You also misread my comment re important/great. To clarify: an important artist is always great (even if one doesn't like his art), a great artist is not always important. Cheers |
Pretty good call with one glaring omission: Lennie Tristano. I would add JJ Johnson as important for putting the trombone on the bebop map. "Gershwin's World": one of my favorite records and mentioned on this thread many moons ago. Joni Mitchell: you need to get more often :-) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q_9QfYIaoTQ&list=PLK8zUi_KAKDhwrgat_gUB5MvtX23okSpV |
****Was there bad blood between Adderley and Hancock? Anyone know?**** Probably not; other than the bad blood that existed between the "purists" and the ones who, in their view, "sold out" (Herbie/ funk, Headhunters etc.). Pretty silly and ironic if you ask me. Remember the "Kung Fu" clip with Cannon, Jose Feliciano and Carradine? It's sobering to realize that some of our heroes can be such close-minded musical bigots; they are human too. |
Acman3, absolutely right! He was definitely an innovator in bebop drumming. I know you are a fan of big bands (liked the Big Phat....BTW). One of my favorite big bands of all time which featured two of my favorite tenor players, Lockjaw Davis and Johnny Griffin: https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLbo8BwcJAsd2LUiYJRpWqBDOe7-ZclKmE&v=iosSZvrDyf0 |
Well, I'm batting .500; not bad, I suppose. ****In Cuba, like almost all other countries and cultures, history and music are inextricably interwoven.**** Could not agree more. ****I think I was on to something, when I said the "African" influence in a lot of this music does not really exist. **** Could not agree less. That it is considered "Cuban street music" in no way negates the African influence. In fact, depending on one's points of view, it confirms it. Surely, you understand that original musical instruments are not necessary for transporting the musical heritage. Remember the comment by some musicians that perplexed you so ("I wish I could play what I hear in my head")? Similar and related idea. Great documentaries, btw; thanks. I will need a day or so to comment on the Afro Cuban All Stars tracks. Cheers |
I just read the Wiki article on "Mozambique". It says this: "Although the rhythm shares many characteristics with Sub-Saharan African music traditions, it does not have anything to do with music from the African nation of Mozambique" It's funny how we sometimes see what we want to see. That comment clearly points out the African connection; but, it points out that, although implied by the name of that particular rhythm, it does not relate to the music of the country Mozambique specifically. |
Rok, I can only assume that you were so excited to read something "supporting" your strange stance on "the African influence" that you neglected to read the entire article. From the very article that you linked: ****I have discussed western influences on African music; it will be impossible to close this discussion without highlighting that Africans have a profound influence on world music today. We can trace this influence to times before the popularization of Jazz as a true hybrid of African and Western musical idioms. Trade played a major role in exposing other nations to African music. Diaries of early explorers are full of accounts that at times exhibit their biases about a culture they viewed as primitive and inferior to their own. It is also important to note that some early writers, such as Mc Kinney and Anderson, who acknowledged that "Negroes [African Americans] brought into the country [America] their own flavor of rhythmic genius and harmonic love for color peculiar to their music." The African influence on Jazz, Reggae, Rhythm and Blues, Hip hop, Rap and other popular forms of music that exist in America, Asia, Europe and other continents cannot be discounted. Mc Kinney and Anderson acknowledge the African contributions to indigenous American art forms when they write, ''Africans contributed to the first popular form of amusement indigenous to the American scene was the minstrel show, a distinctly native combination of a sort folk vaudeville with topical songs of a Negroid character." It is within this context that Africa continues to play a major role in reshaping the world music. One of the major African music idioms that have influence world music is captured in Jazz. Mc Kinney and Anderson argue that Jazz is a kind of music fusing elements from such widely differing sources as European harmony, Euro-African melody, and African rhythm into a kind of improvisations style based on a fixed rhythmic foundation. Its beginnings can be traced to the Negro musicians in the French quarters of the city of New Orleans around 1890.**** |
So, what exactly are you saying? That the article that you referenced (link) is invalid as a whole since it too is simply "what some guy wrote"? If so, then why did you reference the article? Rok, the problem in trying to resolve this disagreement is that you are relying on, and disputing, only what is being said with words. You are not listening to what the music itself is saying; you are not letting your ears give you "the proof". You insist on equating "influence" with "creation"; they are two different but related things. I am going to be blunt and I mean no disrespect: it's amazing that someone who loves music so much can be so closed to understanding the building blocks of music; and how much there is to understand. The connection (the influence) between the different musics is there to be heard; it's loud and clear. THAT'S the proof. I'll give you a concrete example (you want proof?): The fifth track on the record that we are commenting on (and the first of "my three") "Fiesta De La Rumba" starts with a slow 3-2 Rumba Clave rhythm. I will get deeper into the importance of Clave rhythm in Cuban music in my comments about the three tracks, but for now "the proof" lies in the fact that the Clave rhythm originated in Sub-Saharan African music traditions and has the same role in that music as in Cuban music. This is well documented and not really up for debate and all one has to do is LISTEN; but, first one has to know what one is listening to. I suppose that this fact is simply a coincidence in your view? This is the reason that I have repeatedly encouraged you to learn more about this stuff. IMO, you are doing yourself a disservice by holding on to ideas that not only have no basis in fact, but are contrary to those of every authority on the subject. ****Don't shortchange the people of the US and Cuba**** Why are you so invested in shortchanging the people of Africa? |
****Spirituals, Blues, and Jazz are uniquely American, with no African influence I can detect.**** O-10, that comment is almost as surprising as Rok's. I think the operative part of the comment, and what keeps it from being inaccurate is "that I can detect". That one can't detect something does not mean that it isn't there; simply that one cannot detect (hear) it....yet. I think one has to be careful about making comments like that as if they are fact without first having a really thorough grasp of the literature on the subject and what those who have studied the music and its origins very thoroughly have to say on the matter. Of course blues, spirituals and jazz are uniquely American creations, but the African influence is very strong. Again, influence is not the same as creation. And btw, the cross-cultural influences in music are not unique to African culture; the same can be said of any culture that had any significant contact with another. All this becomes obvious if one understands what the components of music are on a deeper level. How can we understand how the use of "blue" notes or polymetric rhythms in African music influenced the blues and jazz if we don't know what a blue note is? Do we? And that is only the tip of the iceberg. The potential in these discussions is great, but we are going to keep coming up against these obstacles and distractions if instead of keeping a more open mind to how much there is to learn there is commentary presented as fact when it isn't. The following link is highly recommended reading from an "authority" on the subject; and, before we are too quick to deem the article "feel good, politically correct nonsense" (or something like that) I encourage you to remember that practically every jazz player on the planet would agree with it. Cheers. http://www.jazzedmagazine.com/2893/articles/focus-session/the-african-origins-of-jazz/ |
#5 "La Fiesta De La Rumba" Slow tempo "Guanguanco". Guaguanco is the most popular style of Cuban rumba. It developed among the different African ethnic groups, primarily from Central and West Africa, who were brought to Cuba as slaves. This recording starts with a 3-2 rumba clave rhythmic pattern played on the claves. This merits an explanation: clave is the name of an important percussion instrument used in Cuban music; two thick rosewood sticks struck together. Clave is also the name of the most important rhythmic pattern in Cuban music; usually (but not always) played on claves (the instrument). The importance of clave rhythm in Cuban music cannot be overemphasized. It is a type of repetitive rhythmic grid or framework around which all the other percussion instruments synchronize their individual parts. There are different Clave rhythms, but this one, the 3-2 rumba Clave is one of the most common. But, what is rumba Clave? Do this simple exercise and this common rhythm will be instantly identifiable to anyone familiar with Latin music. First do the exercise very very slowly by enunciating the beats and subdivisions, and then try doing the same thing by clapping your hands where there is an emphasis while enunciating the beats and subdivisions: Think four beats per measure of music: (1) (2) (3) (4). Now, imagine that each one of those beats is divided into four subdivisions: (1)one, two, three, four (2)one, two, three, four (3)one, two, three, four (4)one, two, three, four Now, do the same thing, but this time each of the four subdivisions of each beat may or may not be emphasized: (1) ONE, two, three, FOUR (2) one, two, three, FOUR (3) one, two, THREE, four (4) ONE, two, three, four Remember, the digit is the one of the four beats in the measure and the spelled number is each of the subdivisions in each beat. Listen to the clave (the instrument) in the song "La Fiesta De La Rumba" and focus on the rhythm that it plays; it is the very first thing that one hears on the clip. This (Clave rhythm) is the heart of Cuban music, around which everything else revolves. I made a comment in an earlier post that, in Cuban music, the dance is almost inextricable from the music. There could not be a better example of this than in Guaguanco. This is Guaguanco (the dance) along with the music. As with almost all ethnic musics (African) the dance tells a story. In this case it is suggestive and playful story of sexual conquest; or, more specifically it's attempt (the dude never gets the prize): https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=m-9JLuvoSPI |
#6 "Los Sitio Asere". Classic Cuban "son"; this one, while technically not a Guaguanco, speaks of it in it's lyrics. Son, the precursor of salsa, became popular in the late twenties and combines the more formal elements of Spanish (European) song ("cancion") structures with African percussion instruments and rhythms. Notable is the extensive use of the guitar. The use of brass instruments in this heavily orchestrated example of son came later, whereas early son did not use brass instruments to this extent; except perhaps a single solo trumpet as is heard on the "Buena Vista" recordings. Classic son uses a more traditional song writing style as opposed to the simpler call and response structure heard in the Guaguanco "La Fiesta De La Rumba". One of the most fascinating things about this style of music and it's rhythm is just how little is happening on the downbeats of the music (the 1,2,3,4). The percussion plays primarily on syncopated beats with the downbeats being largely implied. |
#7 "Pio Mentiroso". A "guaracha". Guaracha is a style characterized by a typically faster tempo than most other Cuban music styles. It gained popularity in Cuban theater productions and is notable for the "dialogue" between the vocal soloist and the chorus. The themes of the songs are usually of a light and happy nature and it should be noted that in this "dialogue" the soloist typically improvises his lyrics. Counter to the guaracha's typically "happy" feeling, it is particularly interesting to note the role that Cuban musical theater and the guaracha had in the emancipation of slaves in Cuba. Both the songs and it's companion dance often made political commentary criticizing the establishment's attitude towards slavery. |
I guess this is the "jumping around" that O-10 referred to. Does this mean we are done with Cuban music? So, was there anything of interest in my posts, Rok? Learn anything? Disagree with anything? This is a crucial moment in these discussions, IMO. One can either jump ship or take things to another level and really make things insteresting and learn something; or, do the usual retreat to the comfort zone. |
****You are a smart guy, examine the facts, and do the math. And don't forget the left-wing elites in the arts, have an agenda.**** Well, this comment can be interpreted one of two ways; either as faint praise or as insulting. Don't misunderstand, I don't take offense and I am also confident that you mean well. But, the comment is too rich with stuff that goes to the crux of the matter to ignore. I'll explain: It could be interpreted as insulting because you assume that I have not done the math. Moreover, you suggest that I would let whatever agenda the "left-wing elites" might have for presenting the argument override MY ability to analyze the issue, primarily by way of what my ears tell me, and arrive at MY own conclusions; conclusions shared by the overwhelming majority of those who know what they are talking about. And btw, the "left-wing elite" argument is, with all due respect, a pretty lame and sophomoric one. What you fail to recognize is that the argument about the African influence on jazz was well-accepted analysis way before our society developed any interest in crediting people of color for anything. But enough of that. I have no issue with your disagreement on a personal level and my motivation is simply to try and help you see the facts; and, more importantly help you develop a way of looking at these issues that is relevant to the act of listening to music. I say relevant because listening and enjoying is one thing, but analyzing the music or it's history is another and I am afraid that your version of "the math" is way off base. Again, you are willing to concede the probability of the African connection in Cuba, not because you can HEAR the influence, but because your "math" makes sense. As I said before, don't worry about the math and let your ears tell you the truth. Remember the "cables" debate? You're simply not hearing it. A challenge: Did you read the link to the article about Gunther Schuller's explanation of the African connection in jazz? Now, rather than simply dismiss the plausibility of his premise, explain why what he poses is NOT plausible; why what he poses is incorrect. But not because "the math" doesn't add up in your view; rather, explain why the musical analysis that he presents is incorrect. I would be very curious. Re "Bolero": They were probably "ignored" for a couple of reasons. Probably because there are too many submissions at any one time to cover them all, and only a couple of contributors to this thread have more than a passing interest in that music. Now, MY honest reasons for not commenting on them (no intention to ignore): First, how many times will we comment on Bolero? Its been done several times before and as great a piece as it is (in its way) it's not exactly the most interesting piece of music in the rep; by a long shot. More importantly, your definition of "magical" is not the same as mine. Perhaps the visual element of the dance makes it magical for you, but for me those two performances of Bolero are not particularly good and I see no point in criticizing your submission when there are so many others to comment on. Bolero is an interesting piece because it's repetitiveness and "simplicity" lays bare the soloists and the ensemble, making playing that is less than first rate very obvious. If those performances were magical from the standpont of the orchestra's performance, what would one call another performance that has better flow, better ensemble playing, more expressive and (at the same time) more rhythmically accurate solos, and better sense of drama? MORE magical? Here's to encouraging you to dig a little deeper. Cheers. BTW, did you try the clave rhythm exercise? Or should I complain that it was completely ignored :-) |
Rok, I don't know where you get your facts. The premier of Bolero was a huge success. If by "riot" you mean the cheering of the crowd then you're right; if you mean that the "riot" was a sign of disapproval you are incorrect. I also don't understand on what you base comments such as: ****If it weren't for Bolero the guy would probably be unknown today**** That comment could not be further from the truth. "Bolero", while popular is considered one of Ravel's least important works. Are you familiar with his orchestration of "Pictures At An Exibition", "Daphnis et Chloe", "Concerto In G" and many others which are considered some of the greatest orchestral music ever written? Look, you probably feel that I am picking on you. That is not my intention, but you are making some comments which are only unsubstantiated but more than a little silly. Tchaikovsky would be unknown if it weren't for the 1812 Overture?!? You must be joking. Re the latest Bolero clip: Sorry, but no cigar. Why the insistence on choreographed versions of the piece? First of all, Bolero was not composed as accompaniment to choreography. When a piece of music is choreographed there will almost always be compromises made in the performance of the music; usually in the areas of tempo and dynamics in oder to suit the choreographer's vision. In this case the piece starts with way too much energy; especially the snare which should be much more subdued. Starting the piece with so much energy means that the dynamic contrast between the beginning and the end (which is what the piece is all about) will be compressed. The solos with the exception of the opening flute solo are not so great with some funky intonation and hesitation in spots. Here's a great Bolero (btw, notice how Muti actually stops conducting in some spots; a great conductor can do that): https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=-7ZBzIXoJDM |
****Rok, let me tell you a tru story about slaves here and their drums. At first the boss man didn't mind, and the drums had catchy rhythms, but when somebody told him, "Hey boss man, did you know they could talk with them drums"? That changed things; from that time on, the drum was outlawed. The very next night, "I thought I told yall to stop beatn them damn drums"! How can you have African music without a drum?**** O-10, I am sure that you have heard the term Santeria. Santeria is the religion that African slaves in Caribbean countries "synthesized" by giving their African gods Roman Catholic names in order to bypass the outlawing of their religion by their masters. "How can you have African music without a drum"......How can you have your religion without your Gods? While it would be ideal to understand the African influence on jazz from the standpoint of musical analysis (which makes it clear and obvious) looking at this parallel might make it easier to understand the answer to your question; "the math". In answer to your specific question "How can you have African music without a drum"? Easily, the drum is the vehicle, the means to an end; it plays rhythms......so does any other instrument including the human voice. THAT is how the African influence on jazz can be heard: the "blue" notes found in their native music and most importantly the "swing" feeling, the swagger and looseness; these are such a big part of the feeling of jazz as opposed to the more rigid or "square" feeling which is typical of the music of the European tradition. Combine that swagger, "blue" notes with European melody and harmony and you get........jazz. This does not take anything away from the fact that jazz is a uniquely American art form; it IS America's most important art from. However, just as we like to say that America is a "melting pot" of cultures, why should it be any different re it's music. I think that the issue of musical INFLUENCE is something that deserves much more understanding, not just as concerns African music and Jazz, but as concerns jazz in general; and, would be extremely informative as we look at various individual jazz artists. It lets the entire lineage make more sense. We recently revisited the subject of Coltrane (it never goes away; nor should it). I can't think of a better example of "influence" than this. Coltrane on alto saxophone sounding amazingly like Bird himself. When one listens to late Coltrane the Bird influence is much much harder to discern; he had taken that influence, fused it with his own vision and had taken off. However, it takes more than the ability to simply recognize an alto compared to a tenor in order to hear the Bird influence when listening to later Trane. https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=MGnY-axUH0U |
You crack me up, Rok. There is so much incongruity and contradiction in many of your views that I sometimes wonder if it's all a joke. Here we have a person who is staunchly "conservative" with his opinions on jazz, but is eager to credit "the masses" for knowing what excels and what does not. ****Once again you miss the point. I thought it was composed as a Ballet?**** Really? Given the above, who do you think is really missing the point. The person who makes clear and factual commentary about the piece, or the person who doesn't even know that the piece was not a ballet, nor can notice all of the mentioned problems with a performance of it. You cut yourself way too much slack. ****Ravel: Of course he wrote other pieces of music. They appear as FILLER, on every copy of BOLERO I own. And if you don't understand how ONE piece can make a career, well you have not been paying attention to the music business.**** I don't know what to say. However, I will say that I am still waiting for a cogent explanation about how the masses are who decide what is good when it is the masses who deem the likes of Kenny G, Madonna, etc. as worthy of their support. ****Public ignores all his 'serious' stuff**** You really do to get out more often. ****Paris: I read that report in one of the British Magazines that did a spread on either Bolero or Ravel. I am almost sure of that. Can't remember which one. I have tooo many to try and find it. I stand by the qoute. I remember it well.**** I believe you have the premiers of Bolero and Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" mixed up. It was the notorious premier of "Rite" that caused the well documented "riot", not Bolero. Oh, that's right...it's another case of "don't bother me with the facts, I will just create my own private reality". ****Pictures!! One of my favorites. Orchestrating other folks compositions, is not the same as writing your own. I have made my point, so I will concede he did do other things. Like a lot of one hit wonders.**** It really must be a joke. "one hit wonder"? Incredible! BTW, Did you listen to the Muti Bolero? How about some commentary about that performance? |
Re the Africa thing and your last post. Please reread what has been said about this. You have blinders on because the idea that your long-held views could be off base is apparently difficult to digest. No one (O-10) said anything about drums in the US; rather, the Caribbean. You obviously did not read my explanation on "influence" vs creation, nor the comment about the instruments being simply a means to an end. |
