Make a Jazz Noise Here

[Grazioso]

Yeh, I've been listening to Potter's latest which is a big band thing, he's a good player.  I found this Dave Dougles CD on Spotify, but they only have one track available, the first one.  It does sound interesting, and the write up says this record is kind of coming out of the Filles de Kilimanjaro Miles transition from the 2nd quintet to Bitches Brew.

I like Douglas' work with John Zorn in the Masada group - that's where I first heard him and have somewhat followed his progress.  He's a good player who has a unique and recognizable sound.

Thanks.

Speaking of Masada, there's a series of live videos of them on YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/v/QsF65-otS8c

[jowcol]

Thinking about 70s jazz of a non-fusion (or at least non electric variety) Lately I've been listening the the Hard Blues by Julius Hemphill on his Coon Bid'ness album, although it was a outtake from a session from an earlier album.    I must admit I hated this at first, but it won me over over time.  The cello (occupying the role of the bass) is really driving, there is wonderfully off-kilter rhythm, and this is a very odd, but eventually compelling blend of free jazz and blues.  The last five minutes (out of 20) are truly amazing-I keep discovering more  of the sounds coming out of the ensemble section.

I was surprised to see a reviewer that responded the same way as I did:

http://www.jazz.com/music/2009/3/2/julius-hemphill-the-hard-blues

The only YouTube clip I  could find was a live version from 89 that did not push the envelope nearly as hard.

[Grazioso]

Some quotes of interest from the dustbin 

It's no secret that Wynton is held in disdain by big sections of the jazz community, certainly among fans, where's he a favorite whipping boy*, in part because of the usual accusations of being a soulless technician, and in part because of his polemics (or the polemics of notorious hanger-on Stanley Crouch).

Hopefully in the future, Wynton will receive a fair estimation--good or bad--of his craft, without all the tirades and nastiness he's subjected to now. And one can't even now in fairness accuse him of some sort of universal regressiveness, if you listen fairly. And like lauded jazzmen before, he has been open to other influences, like classical music, and tried new (odd) things like playing with Willie Nelson.

As for Parker and classical music, that would be typical of him to be open-minded enough to want to learn from other genres.

_{* A major reason--or so it was interpreted at the time--that the once-bustling Blue Note jazz bulletin board was shut down was because when Wynton switched labels from Columbia to BN, the fans there wasted no time savaging his work. Rather awkward for the BN PR folks to have a bunch of extremely hardcore jazz and BN fans lambasting their star acquisition}

[escher]

the polemics of notorious hanger-on Stanley Crouch).

it seems that there's not great esteem for him, but tough i don't share some of his ideas (nor his exaltation for Marsalis like he was the new Ellington/Armstrong/Parker/Davis all in one) i think he's a great critic.

[escher]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-B06-pRjTY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EKnCEWaETI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_YHGUJ4azM

Lenny Breau, the greatest jazz guitarist ever imo


i have clearly to learn how to post videos, i see the ones posted by others but when i use myself  flash i see only blank space...

[Mirror Image]

Excellent post, Leon and I agree with you about Marsalis, but Bob Brookmeyer a decent trombonist? You're kidding, right? He's a first-rate trombonist and more importantly a key band leader in carrying the tradition of big band into the 21st Century. Marsalis has done this too, but let's not discount Brookmeyer's contributions or Keith Jarrett's for that matter. You may not like what they say, but they have more than enough credibility and experience to arrive at their own opinions.

This said, I REALLY enjoy Marsalis's Standard Time recordings, especially the third volume, which he recorded with his father, Ellis. A remarkable musician in his own right.

[Mirror Image]

Yes on both counts, they are both excellent musicians -  but I might even think Brookmeyer was more impressive as an arranger/band-leader than player. 

I spent a weekend once at Brookmeyer's house with a group of musicians jamming.  He wanted to get in shape for an upcoming gig and wanted to wood shed with a band - we played for hours three days in a row.  It was a great experience, but his playing is not that imaginative, and like I said he is a decent player, okay, he is a very good player, but not out of the ordinary - there are many guys who can play at his level, which is high, but let's not confuse him with someone like JJ Johnson, or even Robin Eubanks, whom I consider a much more interesting player.  He is important as an educator, though.  I just thought it a bit of a stretch for him to make this comment about Wynton Marsalis.  And from my experience of him out of character.

Well Brookmeyer is a very different player than J.J. Johnson and Robin Eubanks (whose work with Dave Holland still resonates with me). Brookmeyer is, indeed, a very fine arranger. But I understand the point you make about his playing. No, there are way more technically proficient players that can easily run circles around him. Josh Roseman is another that springs to mind as does Curtis Fuller. I almost forgot Steve Turre and Grachan Monchur!

[Mirror Image]

Speaking of Marsalis, I was looking at my collection tonight and I didn't know I had such a large collection. Around 40 recordings. I think I'm going to listen to one right now:

[asin]B00000273Y[/asin]

[escher]

Marsalis has also written some extended compositions in a jazz idiom which are examples of how a jazz musician can utilize the classical tradition in a way that is valid, compositionally, but which does not take the music out of the jazz tradition.  However, trying to combine jazz+classical is not an area I am much interested in, and have not been taken with this kind of thing going back to Gunther Schuller's (and others) "Third Stream" experiments.  Marsalis does this better than anyone else I've heard, though.

i think you understimate a bit the third stream movement. After all, Ellington, Strayhorn, Mingus, Shorter, Jimmy Giuffre and a lot of talented musicians wrote great third stream music.
JJ Johnson too, Miles Davis and Gil Evans (Sketches of spain for example), Ralph Burns, Lennie Tristano, Dizzy Gillespie, Red Norvo, Herbie Nichols, Andrew Hill, (he was a pupil of Hindemith and Bill Russo). And there are incredibly talented and sadly overlooked composers like Alec Wilder. Just to name a few.
It's clear that there's a lot of pretentious stuff that does not have standed the test of time, but for me there's also very successful and original music that does not sound derivative or just "wanna-be stravinsky" (some of Brookmeyer's music has this effect probably).

[escher]

I don't think of those musicians you name as producing "Third Stream" music, which I limit to mainly the 1950s.  Just because a musician writes for a large ensemble and uses complex arrangements does not make it Third Stream, to my thinking.  Third Stream pretty much only lasted a few years - and aside from Jimmy Guiffre, your list doesn't really have any of the main practitioners.

If you take the books of Gunther Schuller you can find all the musicians i've listed as practioners of third stream music. There are of course also Russell, Lewis, Dolphy and many others. It's a term that Schuller coined exactly to describe a fusion of jazz and classical (but not only) music, not just what you're saying, you can find third stream music even in the thirties (one of the first example listed by Schuller is Red Norvo's dance of the octopus, composed in 1933 if i remember well).
A lot of Mingus's music is third stream, Black saint is the most famous example but there are many others

[jlaurson]

... I've not met or interacted with Marsalis so I cannot say if he exhibits the same kind of attitudes.  But these quotes sound more like a personality conflict is causing a biased reaction to the music....

Marsalis vs. Jarrett (and Brookmeyer and Miles et.al.) is a matter of Jazz philosophy, as far as I understand it... and the level of that dispute (petty, nasty, whatever you may want to call it; in any case not exactly gentlemanly restraint) is flavored by their personalities.

I can totally see how Wynton's contributes to a good portion of the acrimonious tone, because he's got a way of coming across as a massively pompous ass, starting with the tone of his voice. But I can't say whether he's always been like that.  He's also HYPER-sensitive to any suggestion that his Jazz might be regressive... I've experienced that first hand.

That said, after a bit of rhetorical combat for some five minutes in an interview neither of us went into with any enthusiasm, he changed tone (and/or I got used to it) and we had a good time, sending the media-minders to the hills and chatting casually. I assume he liked verbally sparring with someone, instead of having yet more of those sycophantic, shallow five-minute block interviews. One of the reasons why I didn't want the interview was that I felt that I disagreed with his general view on Jazz (partly because I've always admired Jarrett, but that I lacked the wherewithal to express it in a way that held up against Wynton himself challenging it. We eventually let the point of regressive vs. progressive rest and focused on our suits.

And whatever one may say about his style of jazz or his outlook on the genre (or his contributions), I must say that he is exceedingly professional in what he does, starting with the stage crew (i.e. the amplification et al.) all the way to his performances. Perhaps to the point of slick, but in any case quality.

Incidentally I found Jarrett insufferable, personally, without that redeeming end-note Wynton brought to the table... but that's never affected my admiration of his work.

[escher]

"Third Stream" is a label created by Gunther Schuller - and as you are using it, encompassing a very broad group of musicians.  As I've said, I judge music by how it sounds, not by any label attached to it.  Labels are useful only to the extent that they allow for a shared vocabulary that interested people can use to discuss the music and not have to constantly be defining what they are describing.  But, the idea of combining ideas from the classical tradition with jazz can be done in myriads of ways and depending upon who's doing it, sound quite different.  So, I make a distinction between what Schuller, and Guiffre, and John Lewis did and what Ellington and Mingus did - based solely on how the music sounds, not just on the fact that all these guys exploited some aspect of the classical tradition in their jazz composing and arranging.

Leon i have the impression that your distinction is that what you don't like is third stream and what you like is not third stream...

[SonicMan46]

Well, not even sure that I'm a member of this thread; should be since I do own a lot of jazz, just have not paid much attention to that part of my collection lately - but yesterday I left a post in the 'non-classical listening' thread that quickly was buried w/o comment - thought that I would repost here just for those interested -

Bix Beiderbecke (1903-1931) - the premier white cornet player of the 1920s died today (Aug 6) 80 years ago in NYC (Queens) of pneumonia and alcoholism.  In the NY Times today, there was a short article on him and the place of his death.

Any Bix fans here?  I have the recordings below and will make it a Bix aural experience today. Now I bought these years ago and have not updated this selection - would love to hear about any newer compilations, especially w/ improved remastering - thanks.

 

 

[Grazioso]

Again .. you're stuck in categories,

Ten bucks says we'll hear about the category of "art music" in a minute...

..  music is not about that. It's not a matter of taking a bit of this that's called that and bit of that that's called this and blending it in a cheap way. It's deeper than that .. its taking in music regardless of what its 'labelled' and having it effect & stimulate 'your own' creative thinking, it's growth .. it's looking at music at a root level.

Do these nebulous generalities mean anything? Are you a musician or composer with any idea of the actual creative process as practiced by actual musicians?

And why take one of the most innovative and influential musicians in jazz and single him out for praise only because he was thinking of studying composition formally? That seems downright perverse.

Parker wanted to further advance his knowledge of music to advance his art, and he heard and knew serious study of

Kudos to Bird for wanting to learn more. But too bad he couldn't study art music and maybe save some benighted film composers from perdition, too 

composition was the ticket. And what is a larger database to delve into than that of art music? All the best take that

$10 please

approach to education, most that don't & have a silo thinking approach .. stick to what are they told is "jazz" or whatever .. and they simply mold themselves into a way of creating and re-combining a derivative type of cliche & pastiche that doesn't mean much.

Like art music composers who keep using those cliche sonata forms and perfect cadences and dominant modulations and melodic sequencing and...?

You sure assume a lot about how jazz musicians have thought about their music.

Seriously, James, what's the point? You can go on about the great depth and breadth of art music, no labels, narrow jazz cliches, etc. until you're blue in the face, but you'll never convince everyone that art music, whatever that is, is somehow superior to other music. It sounds more like you're trying to convince yourself of something. If you prefer Stockhausen to jazz, or believe that only novelty constitutes artistic growth, cool, but what's the point trying to beat everyone over the head about it?

I'd recommend taking any type of art on its own terms: look at its tradition, see what the artist is trying to do in (or out of) that tradition, and critique accordingly using concrete data. That way you could enjoy something for its strengths instead of wishing it were something different.

Blue isn't green. Damn blue!

[Grazioso]

Again .. i use it to refer to the vast written literature that is there. Even if you don't agree with the 'label' .. i'm sure you know what i'm meaning when I refer to it as a super large musical database that 'any' musician can punch into.

The term is inherently and intentionally loaded to devalue other music as non-art, implying that it lacks aesthetic value, intelligence, skill, etc. If being written down privileges certain music as "art music," then Wayne Shorter's "Footprints" is art because I have a lead sheet of it in front of me atm. The printing is nice, so it's "high art" 

It would be less biased, less provocative, and more in keeping with common usage to refer to it as "classical music." Whatever the label's flaws, the general drift of the term is universally understood.

Are labels and terms inherently limited? Yes, the menu is never the actual meal. But those signifiers have great practical value and provide intellectual frameworks from which to analyze art. The important thing isn't whether, in the end, a piece of music is "jazz" or "classical," but rather using such concepts to help us listen more closely and discover new things. Don't think of terms as straight-jackets, but rather as spurs to investigation or creativity.

And I think we can all agree that it's beneficial for artists to be open-minded and learn new things they might choose to apply to their craft.

[Grazioso]

i'm talking about how you have this enormously large & rich incomparable database of musical information that can be used to feed any musician's muse in much deeper ways .. , there is only so far one could go without it, and if serious creativity is the goal than to ignore it would be unreasonable.

That logically goes both ways: classical composers can learn from other traditions--as indeed some have. And again, what is this musical depth you always speak of with such reverence? Is Ab deeper than A?  You're just begging the question again and again: classical music is deep because you say it is, and since depth is desirable, jazz musicians should want it. Never mind that there's no reference to any musical specifics whatsoever.

You're making a lot of assumptions about music, including the assumption that classical music has elements or techniques that a non-classical musician would want or need to apply to their music.

This could all be turned around (with equally nonsensical results): classical musicians should study the great depth and breadth of the jazz art music database so they could incorporate swing and complex improv into their work.

[Mirror Image]

And yet people continue to argue with James and for what? Remember this folks: he's right, you're wrong. It's just that simple.

[Mirror Image]

Yeh, I know, btw, MI, if you look back a a few posts on the page before I posted some new jazz CDs.  I know you've said you don't listen to jazz much anymore but these things, all released this year, are worth a listen.

Yes, Leon. I'm seriously interested in Henri Texier's recent output, but his recordings are so expensive. The Adam Cruz recording sounded interesting as well.

[Grazioso]

I'm not expecting someone like you to understand, at all. This isn't something I just made up .. it actually exists and applies.

Everyone, please note that the Facts-and-Logic Evasion Manual has been updated. Under the chapter entitled, "Caught with my pants down. What should I say?" please replace "I don't have time to explain it" with "I'm not expecting someone like you to understand."

[karlhenning]

Thanks to a communal suggestion from DavidRoss and my colleague Dan Meyers, Chas Mingus, Let My Children Hear Music

[asin]B0012GMYDM[/asin]