Grex Music2 Conference

Item 228: The new Jazz item

Entered by oddie on Tue Jan 18 17:42:00 2000:

I am entering this item because the old jazz item seems rather dead and because
the music conf as a whole seems to be in need of some new discussion. So, this
is it: the Year 2000 item for discussing jazz: different genres of jazz,
listening to jazz, playing jazz...

65 responses total.

#1 of 65 by oddie on Tue Jan 18 18:02:33 2000:

So, as for myself: I like just about any kind of jazz, from New Orleans to
fusion, but at the moment most of my interest is in jazz from the late '40s
through the '60s, which is to say mostly later bebop (Thelonious Monk, I
find, sounds "fresher" than most other jazz of that period due to his use of 
unusual harmonies and lots of chromatic stuff), modal and fusion. I am really
only getting into fusion, having heard _Bitches Brew_ at a friend's house and
getting out Chick Corea's _Return to Forever_ from the library. (Another two
discs to go on the "buy this when I have more money" list...) _Return to 
Forever_ is an interesting disc, easier to listen to than _Bitches Brew_ and
also influenced a lot by Latin/bossa nova as well as rock and free jazz.
Bossa nova is another kind of music I like to listen to; some would probably
find it too smooth and "elevator-music"-like, but it really does have some
lovely melodies and solos. (Antonio Carlos Jobim is a bit like Bill Evans
in the _Kind of Blue_ era in that he can say a lot with just a few notes.)

I am also trying to start playing jazz (on piano) and meet with my friend
Russell, who is quite accomplished at jazz on the clarinet, most weekends
to play some tunes out of the fakebook. I find it difficult because if you
are the piano player you basically have to make up the accompaniment at the
same time as the melody (especially when there is no drummer or bass player)
and also when I get all tense about it I can't do anything well...so, hopefully
this is something I'll get a bit better at.



#2 of 65 by orinoco on Wed Jan 19 01:13:27 2000:

Well, since the death of the _previous_ jazz item, I've started up taking jazz
piano lessons, and listening to more of the music, so here's hoping for a
restart of the conversation....

Bitches Brew seemed to me to have a "steeper learning curve" than many jazz
albums, but since I got into it it's also been one of my favorites.  Most
other fusion that I've heard hasn't grown on me nearly as much.


#3 of 65 by oddie on Thu Jan 20 05:29:39 2000:

There's an article/opinion piece about jazz of the '70s in the current
Atlantic Monthly, in which the author makes the claim that (paraphrased) the
electric piano & bass in 70s fusion albums sound annoying today because they
have no real reason to be there other than that their use was briefly
'fashionable' in that period. I think that's true to some extent-the two
middle pieces on _Return to Forever_, one a piano/sax duet and the other a
fairly conventionally structured song with piano/bass/drums/flute backing,
would be rather more enjoyable for me if done with acoustic instruments.
(The last piece, _Sometime Ago_ opens with a freely improv'd duet between
electric piano and acoustic bass, which is wonderfully unique-Stan Clarke
makes the bass sound like a flamenco guitar in parts and elsewhere also uses
the bow...) But there also places, like the intro to "Return to Forever", where
the smooth, pure tone of the electric piano gives it a "floating" sonic 
quality which can't really be done with acoustic instruments.
(Hasn't Chick Corea started playing acoustic piano in his more recent work?)

A friend lent me a CD called 'Realms' to listen to during my history final
today. It's by a local guy called Jamie Janover(sp?) who plays the hammered
dulcimer, and had a wonderfully broad range of styles-among other things he
plays an adaptation of a Bach cello suite, Coltrane's "Alabama", Mingus'
"Goodbye Pork Pie Hat," a Jimi Hendrix piece, a folk/bluegrassy tune he
wrote, and traditionally-styled African and Indian (meaning "from India" not
"Native American") pieces. Some of the pieces have a traditional jazz rhythm
section, some are solo and others feature various different instruments.
It was a cool CD and I will have to buy a copy, as well as try to see him
playing in Pearl Street.

(er, "local" above means local-to-Boulder, where I live...I wonder if it's
possible to get the CD outside of this area...)



#4 of 65 by scott on Thu Jan 20 15:03:16 2000:

The problem with fusion is often the glaring lack of structure.  "Hey, this
groove sounds great, let's just do it with endless solos for about 15
minutes".  Bleah.


#5 of 65 by orinoco on Thu Jan 20 19:58:45 2000:

"Sanctuary," on Bitches' Brew, is a pretty strong argument that electric piano
can sound good and not just trendy -- and also, for that matter, that fusion
doesn't have to be formless.  But yeah, for the most part I'll agree with
both.  (Although, for that matter, the keyboards get on my nerves in a lot
of other 60s and 70s music too...in my opinion, the one flaw in Abbey Road
is that damn synth in "Because")

Yeah, Chick Corea has gone acoustic, sometime in the 80s.  (I think he even
called his group something like "The Acoustic Band" at one point, to make sure
we all noticed.


#6 of 65 by krj on Thu Jan 20 19:59:42 2000:

google.com quickly reveals that Jamie Janover is associated with the band
String Cheese Incident and you can get the cd "Realms" at 
www.stringcheeseincident.com 
End of digression.


#7 of 65 by scott on Thu Jan 20 21:48:24 2000:

Chick Corea has done both acoustic and electric pretty much through his whole
career.  For a really cool acoustic album, try "Three Quartets".  Piano, with
Steve Gadd on drums, Eddie Gomez on bass, and Michael Brecker on sax.  The
only jazz album I ever bought!


#8 of 65 by oddie on Sat Jan 22 04:02:27 2000:

resp:2 -- Orinoco, did you have any piano playing experience before taking
up jazz lessons, or are you learning to play the instrument at the same time
as you learn to play the music? And does your teacher teach improvisational
skills or let you 'evolve' them on your own? I think my clarinet- playing 
friend Russell initially started out with a jazz teacher who had him
do a lot of free, unstructured improvisation. I suppose that at the very
least that must help you "loosen up"  and be more spontaneous.


resp:4 (formlessness of fusion) -- yes, there's some truth in that too,
though if the solos are interesting it doesn't really bother me. It's not
unique to fusion, though-John Coltrane's modal stuff with McCoy Tyner
(_My Favorite Things_ &c) also has a repetitive accompaniment on piano
(though when done on piano it is called a "vamp" rather than a "riff", dunno
why...) and I love those recordings. Also on Ruben Gonzales' self-titled
cd he often plays exactly the same riff/chord over and over and over again
under a percussion solo, and that *does* bother me because I never find
drum/percussion solos that go on for more than a chorus very interesting.
(which isn't to say that I dislike the cd as a whole, because it does have
some great piano playing on it-especially the darkly beautiful last track,
entirely solo)
resp:7 (think it was #7) -- oh goody, another cd to look out for... :)


#9 of 65 by orinoco on Sat Jan 22 05:55:34 2000:

I'd done classical piano on and off for years, and some classical theory. 
Mostly right now, my current teacher is doing theory and chord voicings. 
She's also a classical pianist who turned to jazz, so she tends to take a very
classical-ish approach -- "here's a bunch of things that sound good; practice
them so you can play them when you need to" rather than "oh, just play some
stuff and see what sounds good."  I'mm liking it.  It would probably drive
some people crazy.
You?

About the monotonous fusion thing....  It occurs to me that the beat that gets
dull the fastest, for me at least, is the straight 4/4 funk beat that a lot
of fusion is written in.  I tend to have a lot more patience for swing (which
can be even more repetetive, especially with only one or two chords) or for
weird beats (a la Mahavishnu Orchestra).  I'd guess that's because there's
more you can _do_ with swing or weird beats: all sorts of ways you can lean
on the rhythm one way or another, or subdivide things up funny, or whatever.
Given that, I'm a little mystified that most dance music, where all you've
got is the beat over and over and over and over and over and over and over
again, is based off of the more boring sort of rhythm.  Maybe that's why most
techno sucks....

La de da...don't mind me, I'm just thinking out loud.  <wanders off>


#10 of 65 by oddie on Tue Jan 25 04:56:03 2000:

I've been playing classical piano more or less nonstop for nine or ten years
now and have sort of been thrown headfirst into trying to play jazz by
Russell, who is sort of trying to put his own band together...he has me and
a drummer but wants to find a bassist. So, that's why I am having something
of a difficult time of it :) My clarinet teacher told me about a great 
jazz piano teacher (also coincidentally the father of one of my friends at
school) and said she would put in a good word for me if I ever wanted to
have lessons with him. But, two things-I would have to pay for it myself,
and my classical piano teacher probably wouldn't be very pleased about my
taking lessons from another person at the same time. The next time i'm at
the library I might check to see if they have anything remotely useful-looking
on the subject.
It occurs to me that it would be useful to know a bunch of "things that sound
good over this-or-that chord" for soloing, just so that you would have
something to build on or something to fall back on...

What's Mahavishnu Orchestra?


#11 of 65 by orinoco on Tue Jan 25 21:43:04 2000:

Mahavishnu Orchestra was a fusion band, violin-keyboard-guitar-bass-drums,
who got very into odd rhythms and such.  I have no sense of jazz history, so
I can't really tell you much more than that.  AFAIK, their best-known member
now is John McLaughlin, whose solo stuff I absolutely _loathe,_ but playing
with them he sounds pretty good.

Don't assume your piano teacher doesn't want you studying with someone else.
Some teachers won't like the idea at all, of course, but I've even had
teachers who've _encouraged_ me to study with other people.  Can't hurt to
ask.

If you're looking for books, I'd reccomend "The Jazz Piano Book" by Mark
Levine.  The reccomendation comes via my current teacher, who suggested it
after I complained that I couldn't find any books on the subject that weren't
either dumbed-down or incomprehensible.  Then again, I'm hardly an expert on
the subject, so the fact hat it's the least evil book I've seen doesn't mean
much.


#12 of 65 by oddie on Wed Jan 26 04:37:29 2000:

Thanks, I will look for that book. Also I'll ask Russell if he has any 
Mahavishnu Orchestra lps--his dad has a *huge* collection of both rock and
jazz on vinyl, filling up two walls of the basement and one upstairs too.

The _Buena Vista Social Club_ cd arrived today!  Most of the tracks are very
beautiful--there were only a couple I didn't like. Two or three are listed
as "influencia americana," and are a wonderfully fresh blend of Cuban and
ragtime/early jazz styles. It's interesting to realize that American popular
music, which  (especially today with 'world music') borrows so much from
the music of foreign cultures has also itself been 'borrowed' and reworked
by those same cultures.
The guitar playing on the album (most of the tracks are guitar-based) is very
precise and lovely to listen to, and it's cool to hear these traditional forms
accented by the more modern sounds of Ry Cooder's electric guitars.



#13 of 65 by mcnally on Wed Jan 26 05:03:45 2000:

  One of the fascinating things about early ska music (from Jamaica during
  the early 60's) is how clearly you can hear the influence of American R&B
  and yet still have a distinctive and new Jamaican sound..  The process of
  American popular music influencing the development of new sounds in the
  Caribbean and Latin America has been going on for quite some time now..


#14 of 65 by jor on Thu Jan 27 21:05:52 2000:

        nice to see Mahavishnu discussed



#15 of 65 by oddie on Fri Jan 28 04:49:18 2000:

This is a bit of a diversion, but what is ska? (I hear people talk about it
at school but have very little idea what it sounds like...) How is it similar
to and different from reggae?

Columbia Houses's big "megalog" that came this week lists two Mahavishnu
albums, _Birds of Fire_ and _Inner Mounting Flame_ (there's also an album
of previously unreleased cuts called _The Lost Trident Sessions_ but I
reckon it would be better to start off with a more well-known album).
Which of these would you Mahavishnu fans recommend? Is either considerably
better than the other?


#16 of 65 by lumen on Fri Jan 28 05:34:03 2000:

what would you suggest to someone who's never really played jazz?

I've thought about getting a book I have heard of that addresses jazz 
comp for the classical guitar (thru a private Net publisher), and one of 
my guitar teacher suggested I listen to Charlie (?) Parker as he was a 
Segovia student (I'll have to ask again, make sure I *did* get the right 
name..)


#17 of 65 by orinoco on Fri Jan 28 06:03:18 2000:

Charlie Parker played saxophone.  A web search found a jazz guitarist named
Charlie Byrd who _did_ study with Segovia.  Just to make matters more
complicated, Charlie Parker's nickname was Bird.  

Re#15:  I like "Birds of Fire" better; there are a few tracks on "Inner
Mounting Flame" that just get on my nerves.  But both are good, IMO.


#18 of 65 by mcnally on Fri Jan 28 07:35:35 2000:

  re #15:  depends on what sort of ska they're talking about..  what's
  currently sold as ska bears only a token resemblance to the classic
  ska of early-to-mid-60s Jamaica..

  I think we've probably got a ska item around here somewhere -- ask
  your question there and I'll write a bit..  I don't want to hijack
  this discussion just as it's getting going, though, I just pointed
  out the American R&B influence on the early ska pioneers as another
  example of American popular music influencing the musical development
  of a neighboring nation.


#19 of 65 by goose on Fri Jan 28 20:21:14 2000:

Yeah, pump some life into the ska item....

As far as jazz, the 40's to 60's bop and hard bop are the things I dig, as
well as 'free' jazz.

Hank Mobley, Curtis Fuller, Lee Morgan, just a few of my faves.


#20 of 65 by oddie on Sat Jan 29 03:46:45 2000:

Free jazz... I got out Ornette Coleman's _The Shape of Jazz to Come_ (I think
that's the title) from the library a year or so ago, and it didn't really
appeal to me then. But  I should probably listen to it again because sometimes
I pick up a cd some time after first listening to it and find that I like it
much more the second time around.
(This has happened to me twice, once with Bud Powell and once with
Kronos Quartet--who, incidentally, recorded an awesome cover of Coleman's
"Lonely Woman" on _White Man Sleeps_)
Coltrane's idea of "sheets of sound" was influenced to some degree by Free 
jazz, wasn't it? There's a cool cd called _Thelonious Monk and John Coltrane_
on which he uses this style of playing a lot-it's interesting to hear the
contrast between the solid sounds of Monk's piano and the swift, flowing lines
on the sax.



#21 of 65 by goose on Sat Jan 29 07:27:20 2000:

Yeah, Shape of Jazz to Come is a great disc in my opinion.  I'm also into
earlier Sun Ra, late 50's early 60's..the later stuff I haven't yet been
able to get into.


#22 of 65 by oddie on Wed Feb 2 04:44:14 2000:

More on the _Buena Vista Social Club_ disc: I read the customer reviews of
this album on Amazon, and it seems like about a third (maybe more) of the
reviewers--even some of those who liked the disc as a whole--were greatly
annoyed by Ry Cooder's slide guitar playing. Among the nicer comments were
"it just isn't Cuban," "gives it an inappropriate TexMex flavor," etc.
It is indisputable that without the slide guitar it would be a more
"authentic" album, but putting that aside I don't know whether or not it
would be better musically. As I said above, I rather like the contrast in
sound "textures"--the title track is particularly cool-sounding with the
slide guitar soft and very high, sounding rather like a violin. If the
liner notes are to be believed, Compay Segundo was "especially delighted"
with Cooder's two-chorus guitar solo on one other track, and thought that
it would have won the "enthusiastic approval" of the composer.
Surely *someone* else here has heard the disc and wants to comment on it??


#23 of 65 by oddie on Mon Feb 7 05:03:38 2000:

<getting discouraged by lack of responses, grumble grumble grouch grouch>
Two CDs out from the library at the moment: Bill Evans, _Alone (again)_ and
Ornette Coleman & Prime Time, _Virgin Beauty_. The Bill Evans is the first
solo Evans album I've heard, so now I understand why a lot of people call
his style "impressionist". Actually, if I just have it playing while I'm
doing something else for some reason it rather annoys me, but if I
*listen* to it I can hear its gorgeous complexity..the last track,
_People_ (?) sometimes sounds almost like Chopin.
The Ornette Coleman C was made in the '80s I think, so it is more fusion than
free jazz. I don't know what the instrumentation is (except that Jerry Garcia
plays guitar on three tracks, which is cool) but it sounds like the percussion
track is a drum machine. If you have a violent allergic reaction to drum
machines, you probably won't like it. But otherwise it has some pretty cool
tracks on it, most of which are just weird-sounding and off-key enough to not
become sugary. I especially liked the background strings in the ballad-like
title track (is it Ornette himself playing violin??). Next week I think I'll
return this one and listen again to one of his earlier CDs.

On Saturday I went over to Russell's house and for the first time played a
piano solo that sounded semi-decent -- I didn't choke or forget the chord 
changes or otherwise screw up, so I felt pretty good about that.

Three questions:
1) what is "harmolodics"? (this is said to have something to do with the 
Coleman CD but the liner notes are missing so I can't tell)
2) what is the form of an 8-bar blues? (I only know twelve bar)
3) what is "acid jazz"?


#24 of 65 by orinoco on Mon Feb 7 07:42:08 2000:

The first two are terms that I've heard tossed around, but I don't understand
either of them.  I think "harmolodics" was a word that Coleman made up to
explain some idea of his, but I'm not sure.  Ornette Coleman has never
made much sense to me.  
Of course, the last time I listened to any of his stuff, I was listening
to a lot less jazz in general.  Maybe I should give him another try
sometime.

Acid Jazz, IIRC, is not so much jazz as it is a sort of electronic music with
a little jazz influence.  Actually, I'm not too sure about it either.


Yay decent solo!  I'm still at the point of endless scales and chord
voicings and not much more.  Quite frustrating, actually: it's just
free-form enough to be difficult and brain-stretching and make me long for
explicit notation, but not free-form enough to sound like an actual solo.
I know it's stuff I need to learn, but still....



#25 of 65 by carson on Wed Feb 9 15:08:22 2000:

(not directly related to jazz, but...)

(...it sounds like I'll have an on-air slot at WNMU-Marquette soon,
which would include "Listener's Choice Jazz" on Saturday nights. the
station broadcasts at 100,000 Watts, and covers the entire Upper 
Peninsula [and part of Wisconsin], but I don't believe it's broadcasting
in RealAudio yet.)


#26 of 65 by oddie on Sat Feb 12 04:44:03 2000:

Right at the moment I am listening to Ornette Coleman's _Free Jazz: A
Collective Improvisation_, which I got out from the library after returning
Bill Evans and the other Coleman album (some of the songs on which had started
to get on my nerves after repeated listenings...). This is the album with
the double quartet (sax/trumpet/bass/drums on the left, bass clarinet/trumpet/
bass/drums on the right) and I think that is one thing that makes it easier
to listen to than the _Shape of Jazz to Come_ record -- don't know why 
exactly; it is something to do with having a "richer" sound. And the solos
really *are* melodic, not just random notes; sometimes you can hear the
influence of more traditional jazz forms on Coleman (as a teenager he played
saxophone in touring R&B bands in Texas). There is one part which has already
made an immediate emotional impression on me, and that is the bass solo near 
the end. 

So, I haven't completely fallen in love with it yet, but it's definitely 
something I want to listen to a lot more...


#27 of 65 by krj on Mon Feb 14 01:58:24 2000:

Going back a ways:  Charlie Byrd was the jazz guitarist who died recently.
He was based in the Washington DC area, so I was exposed to a fair bit 
of his stuff when I was growing up.  My Dad had a few of Byrd's LPs, and 
Byrd came and played for us in school once.  In more recent years he had 
a regular gig at the King of France Tavern in Annapolis, not far from my 
parents, and I'd meant to try to get there but never did.
 
The only other jazz guitarists who leap to mind, for lumen to investigate,
are Wes Montgomery and Charlie Christian.  (Wasn't Charlie Christian
in the Ellington band?  Or am I hopelessly confused?)  They both 
played mostly electric, I think, though in Christian's case it would 
have been a fairly primitive electric.


#28 of 65 by orinoco on Mon Feb 14 03:04:47 2000:

http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/hansen/Charlie/   has a Charlie Christian bio.
Sez he played for Benny Goodman, but it doesn't mention Ellington.  


#29 of 65 by oddie on Mon Feb 21 06:09:47 2000:

I got two new CDs this weekend! (well actually I got three but one of them
is not jazz and so I won't mention it here). NP: Miles Davis, _Porgy and
Bess_, which is the first Davis/ Gil Evans album I've heard. I like it a
lot -- the style of Davis' solos is very similar to that on _Kind of Blue_
(the album which immediately follows it chronologically, IIRC), although they
are based on a "theme" melody to a greater degree; the orchestral backing
adds interest not only by keeping the mood and structure of the original
piece going beneath the trumpet solos but by making every track sound distinct
from the others.
(It's interesting to note that even before _Kind of Blue_ Miles Davis was
working with soloing on a scale rather than chords--in the liner notes it
has a quote from him -- "When Gil wrote the arrangement of 'I Loves You,
Porgy,' he only wrote a scale for me to play. No chords.")

The other disc is Itzhak Perlman with the Oscar Peterson Trio (Peterson, piano;
Ray Brown, bass; Herb Ellis, guitar) and Grady Tate on drums. I haven't had
a chance to listen to it yet, so I'll write about it probably tomorrow...




#30 of 65 by oddie on Thu Feb 24 05:30:33 2000:

The Perlman/Peterson CD is interesting not only for its somewhat-unusual
solo instrument (and soloist, for that matter ;) but to hear the way in which
Oscar Peterson's style has changed since his earlier recordings (which were
the only ones I'd heard until buying this disc). There's still a lot of
virtuosic pyrotechnics, but also a few examples of a quieter, more tender
style (especially on the gorgeous "Nighttime")...almost reminded me of the
Bill Evans disc in a couple of places.


#31 of 65 by orinoco on Thu Feb 24 12:40:41 2000:

(Funny, I'd thought he'd only played with a guitarist very early on in his
career.  (Or at least, so my liner notes claim (which is what I get for
trusting liner notes, I guess)).  When was the CD you've got recorded?)


#32 of 65 by oddie on Fri Feb 25 04:58:42 2000:

This is a newish CD, recorded 1996 or so -- it seems that recently he has
performed  and recorded mostly with the same trio he had in the 1950s.
The liner notes for the Verve "Jazz Masters 16" compilation of Oscar Peterson
tracks list one other guitar trio, with Barney Kessel and of course Ray
Brown, but that track too is from the '50s (1952, to be exact). The Ellis
tracks on it range from 1956-59; all of the later recordings are from the
Sixties and are piano/bass/drum groups. Did O.P. switch to another recording
label after that?

Question -- what kind of instrument do the guitarists in these groups play?
It doesn't sound like a pure acoustic guitar, but I don't think it's a modern
solid-body electric either; maybe an acoustic guitar with a pickup??
(I ask this because on PBS news tonight there was a little segment about the
history of the electric guitar; the guest was asked about Les Paul, said
he tried to get a "pure" electric tone (without distortion of any kind)
and tried to play a few bars in his style. It didn't sound all that pure to
me, compared to the things Ellis & Kessel play...)

For that matter, who was Les Paul and what kind of music did he play? I have 
only heard the name...


#33 of 65 by scott on Fri Feb 25 13:22:00 2000:

Jazz guitarists often play an "archtop", which is an acoustic guitar
constructed a bit more like a violin.  Often these guitars have pickups.


#34 of 65 by oddie on Sat Feb 26 04:38:16 2000:

Oh, right, I think I may have seen pictures of those actually. Is it a
standard magnetic pickup or more like a microphone?

SInce we were talking about jazz guitarists, I picked up Pat Metheny Group's
_Letter from Home_ at the library today. Although I like some of the guitar
solos, overall it is a bit too soft and smooth for me. They also have a cd
of apparently purely acoustic recordings by Metheny and bassist Charlie Haden,
which I might get out next week.


#35 of 65 by scott on Sat Feb 26 17:54:28 2000:

Standard magnetic pickup; typically a humbucker.


#36 of 65 by orinoco on Sat Feb 26 20:43:38 2000:

If I'm remembering right, using a magnetic pickup on an acoustic guitar will
normally give you feedback.  I think this is because the surface to which the
pickup would be attatched is the soundboard of the guitar, which is itself
vibrating, but someone who knows more about guitars should verify this. 
Archtop guitars are the exception to this.  


#37 of 65 by scott on Mon Feb 28 15:38:07 2000:

Any type of pickup on an acoustic guitar is more susceptible to feedback. 
That's because the thin body walls can pick up external noises.

Archtops tend to have pickups mounted to a solid part of the guitar such as
the end of the neck, which helps.


#38 of 65 by orinoco on Mon Feb 28 18:22:16 2000:

Er...yeah.  What he said. :)


#39 of 65 by carson on Sat Mar 4 05:01:04 2000:

(brief interlude:  I have to program a jazz show tomorrow, and I'd
like to tie it in to Mardi Gras by focusing on the Louisiana scene.
any suggestion on what to play?)


#40 of 65 by mcnally on Sat Mar 4 05:50:43 2000:

  Geez..  That could be pretty tough, putting together a jazz program
  with a New Orleans theme..


#41 of 65 by carson on Sat Mar 4 19:06:55 2000:

 :)

(no, seriously. I'm completely clueless and don't know which artists
are actually from the Louisiana area and which ones are relative
newcomers. I also want to [mostly] stay away from tracks that were
recorded by N.O. artists while away from the area.)

(I have some ideas, but suggestions are always helpful.)


#42 of 65 by oddie on Sun Mar 5 05:33:39 2000:

Are you looking for old (1910s, 20s) recordings, or more recent things? I have
to admit I don't know much about either -- Louis Armstrong (of course), King
Oliver (trumpeter in whose band Louis' career started), Buddy Bolden (street
band trumpeter, think he may have been a barber by day for some reason, or
maybe I'm confusing him with someone else), Jelly Roll Morton (ragtime/early
jazz pianistm who liked to claim that he invented jazz) are the only names
that spring to mind.
(among Louis Armstrong's many groups were the Hot Five, Hot Seven, and the
All-Stars)

Then in the 1950s, R&B got started in New Orleans...  Not exactly the same 
thing that's today marketed as r&b, but a kind of jazz that represented a 
return to the idea of jazz as dance music with great popular appeal (a reaction
against bebop, whose practitioners played the music *they* wanted to play
or even deliberately tried to annoy the listening public and older musicians,
by playing in strange, harsh-sounding chords and so on...)
Louis Jordan, a saxophonist, is the only name I know, sadly...
(Of course, r&b evolved into rock'n'roll, along the way  apparently getting
itself confused somehow with bebop or bop, so that Elvis  was referred to as
"the king of Western bop" at one point...) 

Nowadays I think there is a sort of revival of older jazz styles going on in
New Orleans, like marching-band music and so on...isn't there a band called the
"Dirty Dozen Brass Band" that does this kind of thing??

(I'm afraid that wasn't much help, especially since you probably won't get to
read this before doing your show, but I felt like babbling on anyway...)

To babble on a little further -- it can be really amusing to read the opinions
of the more snobbish jazz critics on R&B's evolution into rock. The mostly
excellent "Jazz: America's Classical Music" has a hilarious little section on
how the process started by Elvis led to a huge list of social evils, the
last of which was "Brooke Shields exalted as child sex goddess of the 80's"



#43 of 65 by oddie on Sun Mar 5 05:36:09 2000:

(I got out Miles' _Sketches of Spain_ from the library and really like a lot
of it but don't have time to write about it now, wait a day or two...)


#44 of 65 by scott on Sun Mar 5 13:30:29 2000:

The "Dirty Dozen BRass Band" is more of a funk band using brass instruments.


#45 of 65 by carson on Sun Mar 5 17:40:18 2000:

(I ended up pulling out covers of old Jelly Roll Morton tunes. I would
have liked to have played some covers of Joe "King" Oliver, but I
couldn't find any on CD; the public radio station rid itself of turntables
a few weeks before I began working there. I also found a couple of New
Orleans-specific works whose names I can't recall at the moment.)

(I did play three non-N.O. tunes: Ella & Louis, "Summertime"; Bob James,
"Nautilus"; Dave Brubeck Quartet, "Take Five.")


#46 of 65 by goose on Thu Mar 9 22:01:38 2000:

another jazz guitarist to check out (re:way back there) is Django Reinhart(sp)


#47 of 65 by oddie on Sat Mar 11 06:08:18 2000:

'Reinhardt', IIRC.

So, _Sketches of Spain_: an album of Spanish classical music and folk tunes,
including a reworking of the middle movement of Rodrigo's Concierto de
Aranjuez, with Miles taking the guitar part on trumpet. Actually, I don't
think that's the best piece on the album; it doesn't stay completely true to
the spirit of the original (especially at the points where the orchestral
backing goes into a swing rhythm behind Davis' solos). But the solos themselves
are really good, and the other cuts on the album (apart from a march piece 
whose rigid rhythm just annoys me -- fortunately it's short) are great. 
Probably my favorite track is the final one, which is of a similar length to
"Concierto" but quite a bit more free-form.

Anyway, today, without returning _Sketches of Spain_, I checked out vol. 2 of
Coltrane's "Complete 1961 Village Vanguard recordings" (the only volume that
was there --  I have given up trying to find specific CDs at the library and
now just check out whatever looks good; unfortunately most of their best CDs
get stolen as the anti-theft system doesn't work). I personally would consider
this Free jazz, at least as far as the soloing style goes, but as it is firmly
anchored in swing rhythm and (most of the time) scales or chords, it is much
more understandable than Coleman. Two of the tracks (of those I have heard so
far) sound more or less like the recordings on Atlantic's _Best of John
Coltrane_, but the ones that made the greatest impression on me were the first
and third. The first track's head sounds very much like the written-out breaks
in Coleman's _Free Jazz_ -- no discernible beat, oddly random-sounding melody;
when the solos begin it seems to be returning to the realm of straight modal
jazz, but the squawks, trills, and virtuosic runs over the horn's whole range
that Coltrane produces make it something much more wild and strange. (The 
playing of the bassist & drummer, including an extended bass solo, is 
incredible too). The third track, appropriately titled _India_, opens with the
drummer playing something that *almost* sounds like a swing beat, except that
it's either in an odd time signature or in no time signature at all; then
suddenly there's an unexpected metallic note in the right channel -- some 
classical Indian instrument, I'm sure, though I couldn't tell you its name;
a few bars later, the bass enters, and then a little later begins  a solo on
a horn that sounds more like an oboe than a saxophone, though I'm not sure
an oboe is what it is. There's also unusual-sounding backing from a couple more
horns, and a solo that I think is either a clarinet or a bass clarinet. 
Awesome track. Awe-inspiring record.


question: this CD doesn't have any liner booklet for some reason, so I don't 
know who the players were for this session. I'd suspect Scott LaFaro or maybe
Charlie Haden on bass, just because the solos sound so much like those on
_Free Jazz_, but it might also be someone else playing in that style. My best
guess for pianist would be Wyn Kelly (because Coltrane recorded with him in
1960), but again I could be completely wrong. Possibly Eric Dolphy as one of
the other horn players. I dunno. Does anyone else?



#48 of 65 by orinoco on Sat Mar 11 21:26:04 2000:

On _Giant Steps_ (1960 also), he plays with Tommy Flanagan, Cedar Walton, and
Wynton Kelly.  So if you're gonna go by what he was up to at the time, it
could be any of those three.  i.e. I don't know.

I'm still trying to bend my ears around Giant Steps.  It's fascinating stuff,
but I find it very tiring to listen to -- I tend to prefer more melodic solos
is most of it.  You definitely seem to have more of an ear for the angular
stuff than I do.  I suspect if I'd been of a proper old-fart age in 1960,
I'd've been one of those people that jazz was dead etc. etc. etc.
(Actually, if I'd been of a proper old-far age in the 60s, I'd've been ranting
against the Beatles and the Stones and have no clue who Coltrane was, I
imagine.  But close enough.)


#49 of 65 by stacie on Wed Jun 21 13:44:14 2000:

*giggle*
http://www.riffage.com/Features/Features/Metheny_KennyG/0,4780,0,00.html

---
Metheny Gets Medieval on Kenny G
by Jim Willcox

If you thought confrontational exchanges between musicians were confined 
to more aggressive musical genres like rap, rock or heavy metal, think 
again. Recently, jazz guitarist Pat Metheny teed off on new age 
saxophonist Kenny G, (full name Kenny Gorelick -- Ed.) calling his 
playing "lame-ass" and "wimped out" in a posting on his website
(http://www.patmethenygroup.com).
                    
The controversy, which started when Metheny cautioned his fans that not 
all music classified as jazz was, in fact, jazz, pointed out Kenny G's 
music as an example, saying the saxophonist played "the dumbest music on 
the planet." Of course, Metheny was then asked by visitors to expound 
on his feelings toward his top-selling contemporary.

Rather than backtracking, Metheny plowed ahead with a full-scale assault 
on Kenny G's abilities in general, but taking particular offense at 
Kenny G's recent electronically engineered duet with the late Louis 
Armstrong. Metheny, who believes that Kenny G's overdubbing on 
Armstrong's song was a desecration of his musical legacy, called the 
track an example of "musical necrophilia." Metheny said he though it 
"weird" when Natalie Cole did it with her father, Nat King Cole, and 
"bizarre" when Tony Bennett did it with Billie Holiday, but added, "But 
we are talking about two of the greatest singers of the 20th century who 
are roughly on the same level of artistic accomplishment."
                  
Then Metheny really let loose. "When Kenny G decided that it was 
appropriate for him to defile the music of the man who is probably the 
greatest jazz musician that has ever lived by spewing his lame-ass, 
jive, pseudo bluesy, out-of-tune, noodling, wimped out, f*cked up 
playing all over one of the great Louis's tracks (even one of his lesser 
ones), he did something that I would not have imagined possible. He, in 
one move, through his unbelievably pretentious and calloused (sic) 
musical decision to embark on this most cynical of musical paths, shit 
all over the graves of all the musicians past and present who have 
risked their lives by going out there on the road for years and years, 
developing their own music inspired by the standards of grace that Louis 
Armstrong brought to every single note he played over an amazing 
lifetime as a musician. By disrespecting Louis, his legacy and by 
default, everyone who has ever tried to do something positive with 
improvised music and what it can be, Kenny G has created a new low point 
in modern culture - something that we all should be totally embarrassed 
about - and afraid of. We ignore this - 'let it slide' - at our own 
peril."

Metheny wasn't quite done, however, saying the only reason for Kenny G 
doing something "inherently wrong - on both human and musical terms" was 
for record sales and money. As a result, Metheny called for a boycott of 
Kenny G's albums and concerts. Metheny finished by taking music critics 
to task for not writing about the issue, and adding "everything I said 
here is exactly the same as what I would say to Gorelick if I ever saw 
him in person. And if I ever DO see him anywhere, at any function - he 
WILL get a piece of my mind (and (maybe a guitar wrapped around his 
head.)"

In a subsequent post to the responses he received, Metheny said that he 
actually wouldn't be hitting anyone with a guitar "despite the fact that 
El Kabong WAS probably my first major guitar influence as a kid."

Metheny acknowledged he was surprised by how much notice "my little rant 
on this topic" has generated in the press, and was disappointed that 
"controversy has the chance to 'win' over musical substance" in what 
gets discussed. "I wish the actual playing and writing could generate 
(this) type of discussion" As a final aside, Metheny jokingly said he 
suggested to an animator at MTV's "Celebrity Death Match" that they 
arrange a bout between Kenny G and the ghost of Louis Armstrong "to 
settle this for once and for all!"


#50 of 65 by happyboy on Wed Jun 21 14:16:05 2000:


oh gawd that was beautiful!




#51 of 65 by stacie on Wed Jun 21 14:28:49 2000:

  Makes you want to weep doesn't it? *weep*   ;)


#52 of 65 by otaking on Wed Jun 21 16:54:11 2000:

I have a LOT of respect for Pat Metheny now.


#53 of 65 by cyklone on Wed Jun 21 19:42:17 2000:

I always have


#54 of 65 by oddie on Wed Jun 28 05:15:51 2000:

I know nothing about Pat Metheny. Well, except that he plays guitar. Would
any of you Pat metheny fans like to point me towards a good album of his?

I got "Bitches Brew" on CD about a month ago. (which reminds me, I have
to pay them for it before they get peevish and send me something I don't
want...). Anyway, the more I listen to it the more inexplicable I find the
violently negative response that it received from jazz critics of the day.
(One of the books I read for that jazz research paper last year referred to
it as "a sad plea for attention") (getting the cause and effect mixed up, as
"Brew" was the record that started the fusion trend, not an attempt to
keep up with it) The music is incredibly complex and multifaceted; it's no
exaggeration when the blurb on the CD back says something like "by turns 
churning and contemplative, airy and grounded, structured and free..."
And it's much too simplistic to label it "jazz-rock," for that matter,
as it has influences from many different musical forms (including, 
incidentally, some of the best ideas of Coleman's Free jazz, like the 
collective improvisation that replaces sharply differentiated round-robin
solos -- John McLaughlin is particularly adept at this).

That said, I'm starting to agree with Orinoco's comment that most other fusion
isn't so good (in resp #2 or so). Having heard quite a lot more fusion 
recently, I can say that none of it has quite the "oceanic depth" (another
blurb quote) of "Bitches Brew." Most of it is rather one-dimensional...
Mahavishnu Orchestra was quite good, although I'm not too fond of JM's 
extreme use of distortion on some songs, and the long guitar solo on the 
first track from Lost Trident Sessions seemed not to really go anywhere for 
all its speed. (The concluding blues-inflected section of that track was 
lovely, though). Also probably I shouldn't evaluate Mahavishnu on the strength
of a "previously unreleased" album (I have heard the others at someone else's
house but *listened* to them...).

BTW, Orinoco, why do you hate JM's solo records? I heard "My Goal's Beyond"
(reissued on CD, incorrectly as "My Goals Beyond") last week and have
decided I'll have to get it. It's an acoustic record with several Mahavishnu
players on it (Jerry Goodman, Billy Cobham, and one other I think...). The
first side is very Indian-influenced with sitar and tabla backing along with
the bass and drums, the second mostly solo guitar renditions of jazz standards.
Actually the second side has quite a classical "tone color" which I liked a
lot.



#55 of 65 by oddie on Thu Jun 29 04:16:25 2000:

(I agree completely with Pat Metheny's rant about Kenny G, btw, don't know
how I forgot to mention that..)
(and thank you Stacie for posting something else to this item, it makes me
feel a little less like it's a lost cause ;)
Oh, and I just noticed that the last line of the second-to-last paragraph
in my previous response should say exactly the opposite of what it does:
"but haven't *listened* to them..."


#56 of 65 by orinoco on Thu Jun 29 18:00:04 2000:

Well, I have to admit that it's not on very much evidence that I've
decided I don't like John McLaughlin's solo stuff.  I owned "The Heart of
Things,"  a 1997 release of his, for a while, and never really warmed to
it.  I saw him live a few years ago and was blown away by his rhythm
section, but didn't much enjoy his playing.  I've heard a few things of
his on the radio, and thought they were flashy but not very interesting.
Then again, none of this that I've heard comes from around the same time
as the Mahavishnu Orchestra; it's possible that I'd like some of his
earlier solo work, which I haven' theard any of.

(Then again again, "Indian influenced" jazz "with sitar and tabla backing"
sounds to me like a profoundly anoying idea).

I suspect that Bitches-Brew-era Miles Davis and the Mahavishnu Orchestra
were only called by the same label because they were both playing <gasp>
electric music.  "Fusion" as a term doesn't seem to mean much more than
"well, they've got an electric guitarist, so....." -- it's misleading.
Bitches Brew sounds to me like especially tasteful free jazz, and
Mahavishnu sound to me like a side current of prog rock. 


#57 of 65 by oddie on Sat Jul 1 05:36:59 2000:

Nonono, it's a very good idea :)  All I really meant when I said it was
"indian influenced" was that it seems to be based all in one scale/chord and
uses a couple of Indian instruments (I think Bitches Brew has tabla on some
of the tracks, and I know later Davis groups had a sitar player [I don't like
this later stuff much, actually, especially as an *electric* *sitar* seems
a bit tasteless...]) Then again, I loved that John Coltrane track "India,"
too, so conclude what you will :)

I heard some of another JM solo record a couple of days ago, incidentally,
_Extrapolation_ (IIRC), which was recorded in '72 with a
quartet of English jazz players and is much more conservative and "jazzy"
than Mahavishnu Orchestra. That was lovely too...

And you are of course completely right about the term "fusion," which
encompasses much more musical ground than "swing" or "bebop" ever did. 


#58 of 65 by oddie on Tue Jul 11 04:00:54 2000:

Russell lent me his B Sharp Jazz Quartet cd, "Tha Go 'Round." Although I
liked some of it, it grew rather monotonous listening to it straight through.
Their style might be described as hard-bop with a touch of funk.

On an impulse I checked out "Song X" by Ornette Coleman & Pat Metheny,
only to discover that I *still* don't understand Coleman...



#59 of 65 by oddie on Fri Aug 18 04:33:33 2000:

Today I went down to one of the used cd stores in Boulder, SecondSpin, and
bought four cds - three classical (Stravinsky Rite of Spring, Britten's Four
Sea Interludes, Sibelius' & Walton's respective second symphonies, among other
stuff) and one jazz - Chick Corea's "Akoustic Band," which despite the yucky
spelling is a very good cd. (I think it was mentioned in one of the responses
above, actually). It's a trio - Chick, John Patitucci on Bass, and Dave Weckl
on drums. They play six standards - the first by Coltrane, the others classic
swing tunes ("My One and Only Love," "Autumn Leaves," "Someday my Prince Will
Come," among others) - and four of Chick's own compositions, the only one of
which I recognize is "Spain." The performances were quite an eye-opener for
me: I hadn't previously realized, from listening to some of Chick Corea's
electric work (Bitches Brew, Return to Forever) what an excellent pianist he
is technically. The drummer (who even when "in the background" is as much of
an improviser as he is a beat-keeper) and bassist are also very good,
especially for their ability to keep up with Chick's unpredictable 
alterations of tempo and chordal structure. His playing alternately reminds
me of Thelonious Monk (in the use of dissonances) and Bill Evans, especially
in the free-form, rubato introductions and cadenzas. It's great stuff.

I've been listening a bit more to an Eric Dolphy cd I bought some months ago,
being impressed with his playing on the Coltrane live CD mentioned some 
responses above. The Dolphy cd is called _Out to Lunch_, is a quintet recording
(Dolphy on alto sax, flute and bass clarinet, Freddie Hubbard on trumpet,
Bobby Hutcherson on vibes, Richard Davis on bass, Anthony Williams on drums),
and is in a style substantially different and more difficult to listen to.
When I first heard it I found it random-sounding and annoying, so I put it 
away for a bit; upon listening to it again I found some of it much more
listenable. My favorite track so far is the perfectly named "Something Sweet,
Something Tender." 


#60 of 65 by scott on Fri Aug 18 13:02:12 2000:

(A really really good Chick Corea CD is "3 Quartets", which is all acoustic
with sidemen like Steve Gadd and Eddie Gomez.


#61 of 65 by oddie on Sat Aug 19 03:24:53 2000:

I like Eddie Gomez' playing a lot. Thanks for the recommendation.
(you mentioned it above, resp:7, but i forgot about it. oops :)


#62 of 65 by oddie on Thu Sep 7 04:46:50 2000:

Since entering the resp. in which I mentioned the B sharp quartet, I've heard
some of their other stuff (they have a total of four cds out on a
not-for-profit label called the "MAMA foundation," if anyone's curious...)
and liked it quite a bit better. The other albums were, I thought, more varied
both in song selection and instrumentation (the pianist played a couple of
different kinds of electric keyboard, and I was somewhat surprised to discover
that I actually liked the sound of it...) and I like albums with variety. They
also had one album that opened and closed with the quartet augmented by a
spoken-word performer, great resonant voice, and although it verged on rap
or hip-hop I liked it much more than either - slower tempo, acoustic backing,
and great literate lyrics. 

Anyway I just thought I should enter that in the interests of fairness. I'd
actually like to buy one of their albums now, but they're more expensive
than most as they have to be special ordered.... :(


#63 of 65 by oddie on Fri Sep 15 04:03:13 2000:

I checked out a John McLaughlin cd from the library last week (was somewhat
surprised to see that a nominally checked in cd actually *was* on
the shelves ;). It's entitled "The Promise," has a different group of
musicians with John on each track, and I'm somewhat disappointed with it. The
first two tracks were great, the first a tuneful duet with Jeff Beck on the
MJQ's "Django," the second a tribute to Thelonious Monk with just Hammond
organ and drums backing. Then there was a piece on which JM overdubs both
synthesizers and acoustic guitar, a bit overdone and muzak-y for my taste.
Then came "No Return," a stunningly tasteless jazz-techno mess which I
couldn't listen to for my than about ten seconds on second hearing. Tracks
5 and 6 I couldn't hear because they were too scratched up (library cds...)
though I suspect 5 was probably good since it was with Al di Meola and Paco de
Lucia and I liked the "Guitar Trio" cd. Track 7 is a Shakti-ish tune, I 
liked it well enough but I don't think the electric guitar blends very well
with the rest of the ensemble. Then there was a minute-long snippet of a wild
jam session with Sting on bass and drummer Vinnie Colaiuta, wish they'd put
more of it on. A pointless 30-second long snippet of electronica and something
with David Sanborn on sax which I found annoyingly smooth and cloying follow.
The album closes with a wonderful wonderful piece, "The Peacocks" (forgot the 
composer's name), played by JM, another acoustic guitarist, and an acoustic
bass guitarist (I never knew there were such things...).

It would have a made a good EP, minus the awful stuff.


#64 of 65 by oddie on Wed May 2 20:47:07 2001:

I got another Miles Davis fusion album, _In a Silent Way_. THis came out in
68 or 69 IIRC, the album just before Bitches Brew. It might be described as
a "lighter" version of _Bitches Brew_. There is only one bassist (Dave
Holland if I recall, playing acoustic) and one drummer (Tony Williams) who
stays in the background almost entirely, so it is both much less aggressive
and more "loose" than on the later album. In a lot of ways the album is like 
_Kind of Blue_ on electric instruments. The solos are even longer and less
"shaped" than on _Kind of Blue_, and annoyed me a bit at first (with the
exception of Wayne Shorter's), but after several listenings they "make
sense."
The second track is both longer (almost 18 minutes) and more interesting
than the first...it opens with some lovely major-key noodling by John
McLaughlin and one of the pianists over a bass drone, after which Shorter
and Miles repeat a lyrical, folky melody. The main section consists of two 
repeated bass lines, one very austere and the other reminiscent of "81" from
_ESP_. The soloists cue the change from the first to the second, like
"Flamenco Sketches" on _Blue_ and whatever the first track on disc 2
of _Bitches Brew_ is. 
Anyway, a good album...calmer and more peaceful than _Bitches Brew_ without
being any less interesting.


#65 of 65 by micklpkl on Tue May 22 00:03:30 2001:

It might be too late to post this; if so, I'm truly sorry. I've been meaning
to write about this for a few days. 

On our local public radio affiliate, hosts Paul Ray and Jay Trachtenburg are
commemorating the 75th birth anniversary of MILES DAVIS with eight hours of
Miles. On Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 8pm CDT/9pm EDT, Paul will serve up four
hours of acoustic Miles on his show (Paul Ray's Jazz). Then again on
Wednesday, 23 May 2001, 8 Central/9 Eastern, Jay's JAZZ ETC. will feature four
hours of electric Miles.

There is a fair-quality RealAudio stream here:
http://www.utexas.edu/kut/kutradio.ram
or, I can tape it for whoever might be interested.


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: