Make a Jazz Noise Here

[karlhenning]

. . . a narcissistic perception that your own personal taste and powers of analysis authorize you to define reality.

Ah, I see you've met James!

[jowcol]

For the 3rd time now, every musician is doing the same thing - they are creating music.

*the eerie tone of a lone flute darts around the breeze in the shadow of the waving lotus blossoms. *

I think I've just had my third eye opened, and all of my Chakras purged in a blinding flash of Satori!   I've never stopped to think that musicians made music.   Just think what this revelation can lead to!

Musicians--> Create Music
Playwrights-->Create Plays
Sculptors-> Create Sculptures
Novelists->Create Novels
Poets->Create Poems
Painters->Create Paintings
Jowcol->Creates Gibberish

Clearly, we are sitting at the dawn of a new age....

[AllegroVivace]

It's originality of Monk's improvisations that matters to me. Monk plays the piano the way old people type on computer keyboards, but he is able to produce sophisticated musical ideas. Sometimes the best innovations are made when the artists lack 'proper' training.

[jowcol]

It's originality of Monk's improvisations that matters to me. Monk plays the piano the way old people type on computer keyboards, but he is able to produce sophisticated musical ideas. Sometimes the best innovations are made when the artists lack 'proper' training.

If Monk speaks to you, that's more than enough reason to pursue his music.  I like and admire him, but I can't say the light bulb goes on over my head like it does with say, the John Coltrane Quartet.  But that's just they way I'm wired.

In terms of a Jazz "Stravinsky"-- the term was applied to Ellington, who managed to reinvent his sound several times. (I'm particularly fond of some of his 60's and 70's work).  Although, to borrow a good point from James's responses, much of Ellington's talent, like Miles,  was recognizing it in others and coming up with the best settings. I don't think either of them were the control freak that a Stravinsky was in specifying a sound. 

Also, I see Monk more like a Webern if I had to draw a 20th century "classical" analog, in that I see him more as honing a personal style than reinventing himself every few years and playing off of emerging sounds from other musicians. 

I'd consider Mingus on the short list of candidates for the "Jazz Stravinsky"-- not that he had the endurance and series of phases of a Miles or Ellington, but was more of a "pure" composer than either Ellington or Miles, in my book.  I'd probably take "The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady" if I only had one Mingus album in my collection.

http://www.youtube.com/v/17KTUqLyNcU

[AllegroVivace]

In terms of a Jazz "Stravinsky"-- the term was applied to Ellington, who managed to reinvent his sound several times. (I'm particularly fond of some of his 60's and 70's work).

I agree with everything you said, except I'm afraid I don't view Ellington as a musician who reinvented himself several times. I feel most of his works follow the same path, consistently capitalizing on his signature style. He's definitely one of my favorite jazz musicians, but not a "Stravinsky"... maybe a "Sibelius", if we continue these analogies.

[Mirror Image]

If Monk speaks to you, that's more than enough reason to pursue his music.  I like and admire him, but I can't say the light bulb goes on over my head like it does with say, the John Coltrane Quartet.  But that's just they way I'm wired.

In terms of a Jazz "Stravinsky"-- the term was applied to Ellington, who managed to reinvent his sound several times. (I'm particularly fond of some of his 60's and 70's work).  Although, to borrow a good point from James's responses, much of Ellington's talent, like Miles,  was recognizing it in others and coming up with the best settings. I don't think either of them were the control freak that a Stravinsky was in specifying a sound. 

Also, I see Monk more like a Webern if I had to draw a 20th century "classical" analog, in that I see him more as honing a personal style than reinventing himself every few years and playing off of emerging sounds from other musicians. 

I'd consider Mingus on the short list of candidates for the "Jazz Stravinsky"-- not that he had the endurance and series of phases of a Miles or Ellington, but was more of a "pure" composer than either Ellington or Miles, in my book.  I'd probably take "The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady" if I only had one Mingus album in my collection.

http://www.youtube.com/v/17KTUqLyNcU

This gets my nomination for best Mingus recording as well. In fact, I think I'll be listening to this one later on...

[escher]

Black saint is probably my favorite too. The last extended part sounds a bit frayed to me, but it's a great album. Anyway the comparison Monk/Webern is not bad at all.
I agree with Allegro Vivace on Ellington, though the albums in late fifties/sixties are very good, stylistically the music is not so different from what he did in the Blanton/Webster period. Like Monk, he invented his own style and he was indifferent to the evolutions (and to the fashions) of jazz.

[jowcol]

I agree with everything you said, except I'm afraid I don't view Ellington as a musician who reinvented himself several times. I feel most of his works follow the same path, consistently capitalizing on his signature style. He's definitely one of my favorite jazz musicians, but not a "Stravinsky"... maybe a "Sibelius", if we continue these analogies.

Although I don't think Ellington is as extreme as Miles in terms shifting styles, he did go from shorter works to suites in the 50s, and I'd also say that the Far East Suites, Les Plus Belle Africanne (sp?), and Afro Eurasian Eclipse went further than one might expect toward modal and third world elements.  I'd also give him some credit for emphasizing the solo over ensemble on the Diminuendo and Crescendo in  Blue at the Newport Jazz Festival that put him on the map.    But you're free to your own interpretation, and Sibelius is not a bad model either...

[jowcol]

Black saint is probably my favorite too. The last extended part sounds a bit frayed to me, but it's a great album. Anyway the comparison Monk/Webern is not bad at all.

I'd agree as well-- the whole second half of the album seems to recycle what was an amazing first half, but that first half nails me.

[escher]

Although I don't think Ellington is as extreme as Miles in terms shifting styles, he did go from shorter works to suites in the 50s,

yes but in the fifties (late forties actually) there was the introduction of long playing, but he had yet experimented with the suite. In the thirties he had yet composed Reminiscing in tempo (and i have to add that one the classic critics of his work is that he was capable to compose only in the small form and that the suites sound like a succession of little pieces without a strong connection: under this aspect Reminiscing in tempo is one of his most successfull extended works). About the exotic flavour of the works you have mentioned, consider the pieces written for the orchestra especially by Tizol: Koko, Caravan, Conga Brava, Bakiff, Pyramid, Sphinx... there's not great difference for me (though i had to relisten to afro eurasian eclipse).

[Grazioso]

*the eerie tone of a lone flute darts around the breeze in the shadow of the waving lotus blossoms. *

I think I've just had my third eye opened, and all of my Chakras purged in a blinding flash of Satori!   I've never stopped to think that musicians made music.   Just think what this revelation can lead to!

A lightning flash--
the sound of water drops
falling through bamboo.

--Buson

[karlhenning]

Interesting timing! Just now loaded Ah Um into the tray:

[asin]B00000I14Z[/asin]

[escher]

Ellington kind-of evolved .. he was certainly more of a composer than Miles ever was .. it certainly wasn't as free/rambling as Miles got. But he doesn't really touch Stravinsky either, it's a bankrupt comparison on all levels (no one in jazz comes close) .. and you can tell that Ellingtion (like Mingus) really aspired and was influenced by the major composers .. but the results weren't ever close.

Webern? Wow .. that's a stretch of the imagination, he's nowhere near that. These comparisons are funny imo.

at least there's a progress

[North Star]

Interesting timing! Just now loaded Ah Um into the tray:

[asin]B00000I14Z[/asin]

A great album if there ever was one - and perhaps as close as any to being the Stravinsky of jazz.

[escher]

he tried things .. not much in the way of progress .. and it's way behind what the major composers were/are doing.

James what are your favorite classical works of the XX century?

[jowcol]

... i don't take it seriously per se, but it is kind-of funny and amusing how off base the thinking is here; and it's all music .. the tags are meaningless remember, it's all creating music ..

Yes!   I've earned the coveted "Off Base" award!  This could either mean that

A:  He imparting his knowledge of my fall from grace as part of an effort to unbirth my ego so that I may find my "inner James"
       http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,18249.msg503335.html#msg503335
B:  I'm one step closer in winning a game of "James Bingo", and I I need is a "pfft" to cash in.

Either way, I'm enriched by the  experience.

[Grazioso]

Yes!   I've earned the coveted "Off Base" award!  This could either mean that

A:  He imparting his knowledge of my fall from grace as part of an effort to unbirth my ego so that I may find my "inner James"
       http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,18249.msg503335.html#msg503335
B:  I'm one step closer in winning a game of "James Bingo", and I I need is a "pfft" to cash in.

Either way, I'm enriched by the  experience.

"Thank goodness you've finally come to your senses and realized how obvious it is that the major classical composers are superior to any of those jazz guys, who weren't really bad, just not superior to the major guys of Western Art Music. Best of all, you didn't have to analyze a single score or lead sheet or recording--or use logic, which would have only left you exhausted and drooling. Isn't it amazing what the mind can do when you close open it!!"

Back to the composer analogy, I wonder you'd fit a guy like Anthony Braxton, who has always been notoriously hard to categorize. Or someone like Sun Ra, who moved freely between Ellington-inspired big-band pieces and avant-garde exploration, employed costumes and multimedia, brought in elements of history and philosophy and science fiction...

http://www.youtube.com/v/djBKQNVj5Cc

[Grazioso]

Okay...

Sorry, you are wrong.   

But seriously,

do not care if someone will think I am unsophisticated because I prefer jazz to classical music - them's just the facts.

I wonder why anyone would think that. There's nothing remotely unsophisticated about jazz. Anyone who thinks that should study jazz harmony for a few years and then get back to you--if they survive the process

[jowcol]

Okay, let's use your context, "it's all music" - no labels, just music.  Then I can say without a shred of doubt that Miles Davis, Monk, Coltrane, Ellington, and many others make music of much more importance to me than anything done by Boulez, Stockhausen and even Stravinsky.  I have listened to nothing but my collection of Miles recordings for a solid month and never gotten tired of the music he was making or felt like listening to something else.  I've done the same with Mozart, but for few other musicians or composers, can I say the same thing - least of all Stockhausen, Boulez or Stravinsky, although Stravinsky's music offers more to me than either of the other two.  Having said that, I am deeply interested in what Stockhausen and Boulez do, and enjoy their work immensely.  But if pressed, and from a purely personal perspective they cannot hold a candle to Miles or jazz in general - of course, all of this is entirely IMHO.  I have nothing to prove to anyone and do not care if someone will think I am unsophisticated because I prefer jazz to classical music - them's just the facts.



I get the impression that you seem to value "thinking" or the process of composing above other values, possibly over all other values.

I don't. 

Since it's all music, then what I react to is the music - unadorned, without focusing on the knowledge of  how it was created, i.e. what process was used, whether it was written using the major-minor system, or a serial technique or it is improvised music from the jazz tradition.  I like the way jazz sounds and feels more than serial music, and almost all other kinds of music.  Some classical era composers stand along side Miles or Coltrane or Monk in my world, especially Mozart - but I cannot think of many others.  The enjoyment I get from jazz is vastly different, and really much preferable for me, than the enjoyment I get from classical music.

Frankly I prefer almost any jazz to most classical music.  But listen to and enjoy both, and at varous times of my life I have listened to one or the other more, or Brazilian music, or Blues, or singer-songwriters, or Country, etc.  It's all music; and it's all good - and all of these styles are sui generis and it is a waste of time (to me, but obviously not to you) to compare one to the other.

I'd venture to say that SOME of us have figured out the IMHO part of this already.

I think that, from my experience, the worth of a given type of music depends on the kind of experience I want to have, so that "good" and "bad" are a matter of context.  I think that what you said about how the "type" of  enjoyment you get from different types varies by genre.  I'd agree. 

I tend to like my improvised music on the rough side-- spontaneity,  groove, and communication between the players is what I'm looking for, and I don't mind the periodic glitches if the "feel" is alive.  Most "classical" music, even if it has improvised sections, doesn't deliver that experience to me. Similarly, for my blues (and I'm a voracious listener of blues), I don't look for anybody taking the form to new levels or pushing their composition skills-- I see it as a performance art form, and the most important thing is to open up a vein and let the feeling flow.  Too much production  can kill the spark I'm looking for.  Trying to put too much control on it, for me, kills the beast.   Jazz and blues that is overly planned reminds me of a very meek person I knew who bought a motorcycle, but never rode it-- he bought a trailer so that he could carry it around.

Even in terms of the classics, my needs have changed over the last few decades, and lately I'm listening mostly to composers that I have only discovered recently-- I'm not spending as much time Stravinsky, Bartok, Prokofiev, and some of the other "faves" I cut my teeth on. I'm not saying they are any less valuable to me-- I just need to discover new stuff.  When people get into comparative music discussions, you can tell which people are looking to expand their circle of knowledge, and which ones are building a taller wall around what they are comfortable with.

I would not sell short the admonition that "it's all just music".   One of my favorite Zen quotes is: "My miracle is that when I feel hungry I eat, and when I feel thirsty I drink."

[Grazioso]

I'd venture to say that SOME of us have figured out the IMHO part of this already.

I think that, from my experience, the worth of a given type of music depends on the kind of experience I want to have, so that "good" and "bad" are a matter of context.  I think that what you said about how the "type" of  enjoyment you get from different types varies by genre.  I'd agree. 

I tend to like my improvised music on the rough side-- spontaneity,  groove, and communication between the players is what I'm looking for, and I don't mind the periodic glitches if the "feel" is alive.  Most "classical" music, even if it has improvised sections, doesn't deliver that experience to me. Similarly, for my blues (and I'm a voracious listener of blues), I don't look for anybody taking the form to new levels or pushing their composition skills-- I see it as a performance art form, and the most important thing is to open up a vein and let the feeling flow.  Too much production  can kill the spark I'm looking for.  Trying to put too much control on it, for me, kills the beast.   Jazz and blues that is overly planned reminds me of a very meek person I knew who bought a motorcycle, but never rode it-- he bought a trailer so that he could carry it around.

Even in terms of the classics, my needs have changed over the last few decades, and lately I'm listening mostly to composers that I have only discovered recently-- I'm not spending as much time Stravinsky, Bartok, Prokofiev, and some of the other "faves" I cut my teeth on. I'm not saying they are any less valuable to me-- I just need to discover new stuff.  When people get into comparative music discussions, you can tell which people are looking to expand their circle of knowledge, and which ones are building a taller wall around what they are comfortable with.

I would not sell short the admonition that "it's all just music".   One of my favorite Zen quotes is: "My miracle is that when I feel hungry I eat, and when I feel thirsty I drink."

"What is Zen?"
"In summer we sweat, in winter we shiver."   

Different musics offer different things. Listen to the ones that offer what you seek. Why try to tie art down on some Procrustean bed of taste? Don't let concepts get in the way of reality.

I would think that if you love music, you'd want more of it, not less, that you'd want to find the good in it, not the bad. "Oh, that's no good, that's trash, that's simplistic..." What kind of love is that?