Make a Jazz Noise Here

[jowcol]

I have the 6-CD set - and find it fantastic; a brilliant line up of musicians creating jazz at a very high level.

Are you familiar with any of the live recordings from the 1960 Miles tour?  I'm particularly fond of the Copenhagen show:

http://www.amazon.com/Copenhaguen-Miles-Quintet-Davis-Coltrane/dp/B000BPN26I

Wynton Kelly took Bill Evan's place, but did a find job, and you have to love a long So What and All Blues...

[karlhenning]

Maynard & the boys, Chameleon

[asin]B00009VU2Z[/asin]

[karlhenning]

Maynard & the boys, Chameleon

[asin]B00009VU2Z[/asin]

Three-quarters of which is a great album ; )

And for unalloyed greatness: Eric & the likely lads, Out There

[asin]B000EMGIH8[/asin]

[karlhenning]

MJQ, Django

[jowcol]

Not Copenhagen but, I've got some of that period with In Stockholm: 1960 Complete .  Wynton Kelly is in the group. 

I haven't heard the Copenhagen 1960 live recording, but from what I have read it is great.

The Stockholm show is also just as strong.  Both are fun.

[jlaurson]

A Jazz Noise here:

http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2011/04/dip-your-ears-no-109.html

Two Swedish Jazz CDs reviewed.

[North Star]

Some of my favorite recordings:






And KOB, too.

[karlhenning]

First listen:

[asin]B00005MIZ4[/asin]

None of it any unknown quantity, to be sure.

It all flies by, I notice today.  21 tracks, and the longest runs 3'20.  It's all good, but at the end I feel, what was the hurry?

I don't mean the pace of the music itself, which is always vibrant, self-recommending.

[escher]

First listen:

[asin]B00005MIZ4[/asin]

None of it any unknown quantity, to be sure.

It all flies by, I notice today.  21 tracks, and the longest runs 3'20.  It's all good, but at the end I feel, what was the hurry?

I don't mean the pace of the music itself, which is always vibrant, self-recommending.

i think it depends by the fact that "genius of modern music" is a compilation of pieces recorded before the introduction of the LP format, and then collected as an album afterward.

[Mirror Image]

01 On Green Dolphin Street
02 Fran Dance
03 Stella By Starlight
04 Love For Sale
05 Straight, No Chaser
06 My Funny Valentine
07 Oleo

[asin]B0000027R5[/asin]
Miles Davis – trumpet
Julian "Cannonball" Adderley – alto saxophone
John Coltrane – tenor saxophone
Bill Evans – piano
Paul Chambers – bass
Jimmy Cobb – drums

A great recording and one that is seldom discussed amongst Davis fans for whatever reason.

[Mirror Image]

Not me,  over 9 minutes and it's got to have A LOT more to keep me listening ..

Same here and this has why I've always preferred studio recordings to live ones. Many people say "Man, you've got to hear so and so play this 15-minute solo." I'm sorry but no jazz musician can hold my attention with a 15-minute improvisation. In the studio, they liked to keep things short and sweet and, for the most part, this is the best approach in my opinion because jazz musicians tend to ramble on and on and they start to recycle or fall back on the same licks if it goes over a certain amount of time.

[Mirror Image]

I hate to say this but listening to classical about 99% of the time for the past two years has weaned me off of jazz music. Don't get me wrong, I still love the greats like Monk, Miles, Evans, Duke, Kenton, Blakey, Getz, Brubeck, but I'm finding that I haven't returned to much of this music at all.

[Grazioso]

I hate to say this but listening to classical about 99% of the time for the past two years has weaned me off of jazz music. Don't get me wrong, I still love the greats like Monk, Miles, Evans, Duke, Kenton, Blakey, Getz, Brubeck, but I'm finding that I haven't returned to much of this music at all.

Don't worry, you'll realize the things classical music is missing and return to jazz, too 

[Grazioso]

Yea .. (for the most part) gotta agree.

Not really .. the more and more one is immersed in the great depth & breadth that is 'western art music', the more & more one will clearly see how this 20th century music they call "jazz" can't hold a candle to it and is a completely narrow (and rather crude) affair in comparison.

p.s. i own and love quite a bit of jazz but one has to be clear-headed and realistic as possible about these things.

You can eat ketchup all day and assure people it's better than mustard, but it's still not mustard Personal preferences aside, with an honest study of both styles, it's plain to see that they each possess things the other (largely) lacks. Obviously, some will respond to elements in either or both.

It seems strange to dogmatically assert the utter superiority of one style of music while still listening to and claiming to love another. Either you see the worth in both or there's some odd hypocrisy or self-delusion going on. If something is completely narrow and rather crude (and that seems an odd assertion about jazz, which can get quite complex--have you played or studied it?), why bother with it?

Music isn't a contest.

[Mirror Image]

Don't worry, you'll realize the things classical music is missing and return to jazz, too 

I know you're joking around, but, in all honesty, I don't think classical music is missing anything or I would obviously be listening to something else. For me, jazz doesn't get off the ground very much, whereas classical seems to be apart of some other cosmic hierarchy.

[Bogey]

A personal favorite .. these guys are playing improvised rock music. Just like Zeppelin, they were approaching rock with a very jazz mentality.

01 Who Knows
02 Machine Gun
03 Changes
04 Power to Love
05 Message to Love
06 We Gotta Live Together

[asin]B000002UVX[/asin]
Jimi Hendrix - guitar, vocals
Buddy Miles - bass, vocals
Billy Cox - drums, vocals

Jazz, rock, etc....whatever you want to call it, one of the greatest albums ever recorded IMO.

[karlhenning]

Mighty sweet, this:

[asin]B000005GX2[/asin]

[Grazioso]

We're not talking 'styles' .. we're talking 'music', quality, breadth & depth in all parameters. It's not 'strange' at all to hear & clearly realize things for what they are, it's a very easy conclusion to come to in fact; with enough prolonged exposure.

What are the specific parameters of musical breadth and depth? I'd like to know how rate music And how are we not talking styles or genres? You were setting up classical music and jazz in opposition.

As for prolonged exposure, I've been listening to classical music and jazz alike for many a year. All that means is that I've heard a ton of music--and am out of shelf space You could watch baseball for years, but you can't with any authority or validity say one batter was better than another last month if you don't start talking specifics like batting average, OBP, RBI, homers, etc.

Similarly, unless you analyze music and discuss it in terms that allow for comparison, you're just expressing preference, not fact. You prefer classical music to other genres. Cool. But that doesn't tell us anything factual about the music. What about the details of harmony, melody, rhythm, structure, improvisation, instrumentation, etc.? And to speak in terms of success or failure, you'd need to know what the composer or musician was trying to achieve, analyze their methods, and then see how close they came to their goals. Otherwise it's all just opinion.

My opinion: both classical and jazz have plenty of enjoyable stuff to hear.

I know you're joking around, but, in all honesty, I don't think classical music is missing anything or I would obviously be listening to something else. For me, jazz doesn't get off the ground very much, whereas classical seems to be apart of some other cosmic hierarchy.

Yes, I was speaking with tongue partially in cheek, and I know what you mean, though obviously I don't feel that way. I love classical music deeply, but it doesn't satisfy all my musical needs/interests. There's a huge world of music beyond the confines of Western classical.

[Grazioso]

For fans of ECM-style Euro jazz:



These guys are impressive. They were playing with Tomasz Stanko for a number of years.

http://www.youtube.com/v/jeIwfde-Okg

[Grazioso]

You honestly don't seem too clued-in on much. Case & point, you are unaware of what music is and have to ask what it's parameters are. And you can't fathom and seem totally unaware of musical time & history as a whole (breadth/depth). Add to that, that whenever we have a discussion like this you think it must be approached in an objective 'prove it to me' analytical scientific manor (for "it to be fact") which is absolutely daft. (again, you're oblivious to musical time & history, unaware-of what has actually occurred) Furthermore, your lack of insight & understanding is reinforced often by your comments and choices from what I see on this board.

You confuse biases for facts. You say classical music has more breadth and depth and so on and so forth (or that another music, like film music, is somehow inferior). People ask you what you mean, ask you for definitions, ask for examples, etc., and you never provide any. You just say "It's obvious, you're ignorant."

It's not too much to expect one to back one's assertions, especially when they're so tendentious. Green is better than blue! Because!

Now, as for historical longevity, if that's what you mean by breadth, sure, the Western classical tradition as we know it has been going strong for centuries, whereas jazz, for example, is a relative newcomer. But the same historical "breadth" could be asserted for Indian classical music or Japanese classical court music or other traditions.

If by breadth you mean stylistic diversity, then you need to talk specifics: harmony, melody, rhythm, structure, improvisation, instrumentation, ornamentation, etc. Ditto for depth, beyond subjective emotional responses. Break out some scores/transcriptions and show us what you're getting at. Otherwise, what you're doing is no different than someone insisting that landscapes are superior to portraits without actually talking about painting.