|
|
Post by alimcg on Mar 5, 2007 21:58:52 GMT 10
Yesterday I cracked and bought some new CDs. I still have about half a dozen discs left in my quest, but saw some good stuff going cheap and couldn't help myself.
Art Blakey - Buhaina's Delight.
Joao Gilberto - essentially a solo album from '73. Amazing version of Aguas de Marco (no cheesy English lyric thank goodness). Generally a beautiful understated performance, but still with depth and intensity - not the mind-numbing Norah Jones style of understatement (coma inducing).
|
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on Mar 7, 2007 19:07:22 GMT 10
Out to Lunch - Dolphy - was todays joy. Absolute bloody brilliance by all. Way ahead of it's time, a time still yet to come by most standards!
Great writing and improvising, has got it all and more comes each time I listen to it.
For VHB,,,,, 6 Billion stars!! ( and a half )
|
|
|
|
Post by captain on Mar 8, 2007 1:14:47 GMT 10
I can't stand Dolphy - he always sounds like he's trying SO hard to be abstract, it always sounds forced and contrived to me. Stick that in yer pipe and smoke it!
|
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on Mar 8, 2007 7:01:21 GMT 10
Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, even when it's totally wrong.
When you grow up you will understand.
I guess Miles sounded to you like he was trying to play beautifully, Parker sounded like he was trying to make the changes, Trane sounded like he was trying to be intense, Monk,,,,
btw, I don't smoke.
|
|
|
|
Post by trumpetguy on Mar 8, 2007 8:31:53 GMT 10
Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, even when it's totally wrong. When you grow up you will understand. I guess Miles sounded to you like he was trying to play beautifully, Parker sounded like he was trying to make the changes, Trane sounded like he was trying to be intense, Monk,,,, btw, I don't smoke. I'm with you guts! (re opinion, I'm not actually WITH you) |
|
|
|
Post by captain on Mar 8, 2007 10:03:41 GMT 10
No Guts, all those guys played naturally and without contrivance - which is why they're good! I'd have to say Dolphy was a product of the era, plus he died very young so we never got to hear what a 'Mature' Dolphy would have played like. Just like Trane he would have got over trying to fit all the notes in all the time.
Btw his solo on Bass Clarinet on Trane's 'Spiritual' is badarse - I guess its his alto playing I cant stand.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on Mar 8, 2007 13:33:09 GMT 10
oh well, we disagree then. I don't hear him like that at all. I do think he would have continued to 'mature' as you say, but i recon he was doin ok.
It's interesting to note that the story goes he was able to play just like Bird in the sense of be-bop. In fact some stories of him warming up a festivals had people bewildered as to who it was as it sounded so much like Bird, then 'they' would peak in the room to see Dolphy. Maybe this supports your view more than mine but it is interesting.
There is also the story that his parents used to have to stop him practicing in order to get him off to school, then again after school for dinner etc. He was extremely dedicated and had a goal in mind. Again, maybe more support for you that he was 'trying' for something.
To me it is that 'trying' or searching that adds interest to his whole approach. Not content just to do what has been done or what he can repeat ( very effectively too) but to go for something else.
I think he was an extremely distinctive Artist that had an individuality that was so 'out' that it's hard for people to grasp. To say he is contrived is merely acknowledging his intelligence and ingenuity and that is not a 'bad' thing. Parker was surely the same in that respect? To say it's not 'natural' , well what the fuck is natural about playing an instrument like the saxophone anyway?? Or any instrument for that matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by captain on Mar 8, 2007 15:31:23 GMT 10
Sure, he was playing alot of dense Harmonic shit - something that some listeners may find 'hard to grasp' (myself included) And of course working on a whole lot of music and working your arse off is never a bad thing.
However, from a purely subjective viewpoint, I don't dig it - and from a (slightly) more objective viewpoint, there were alot of those sort of players around in the 60's, (players more concerned with theoretical exercises than other elements of music) and history has shown that they are always trumped by the players who really 'expressed' something on their horns, the ones who managed to leave the scale and chord theory behind. (Coltrane, Miles, Shorter etc)
Let me clear that this is NOT an endightment of learning theory and advanced harmony, just an explanation of my feelings for certain modernists who leave me cold. Woody Shaw is another one, - I had some on today (to learn a tune for a gig) and I just can't be bothered with these mid to late 60's blue note things anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on Mar 8, 2007 16:22:58 GMT 10
Trumped only in your opinion. I hope you're not using such judgments as popular or financial success??
There was certainly not 'alot' of Dolphy type of players in the 60's or any other time, or any like Woody Shaw either. These are two very unique individuals.
I must admit though, to having some empathy with your view in relation to some recordings. For my ears the problem lies more in the attitude of many of the rhythm section players that were used on these dates and the lack of a similar forward looking approach. It doesn't work to simply play the way they ( Eric and Woody ) play over the existing be-bop type accompaniment. To me, the playing on 'Out To Lunch' IS finding paths where this playing does work very successfully .
As far as Trane and Shorter leaving scale and chord theory behind then you have little understanding of the history that I have come upon. Maybe your history books differ somewhat??? Ever heard of Slominsky and the effect the book had on Trane? Ever analyzed Waynes tunes and taken note of his intensely complex forms and harmonic knowledge? I also doubt that Miles was a noble savage.
Might be worth noting that Eric and Trane spent considerable time together concerning themselves with theoretical exercises and were avid supporters of each others playing.
If you just 'can't be bothered with these mid to late 60's blue note things anymore', then I would suggest you might follow their lead and only spend your time writing your own music, coming up with your own ideas, and stop doing that repertoire.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj on Mar 8, 2007 22:36:37 GMT 10
Actually, Eric & Trane spent a lot of time together playing golf. They got away with it by telling their wives they were working on some new scales, modes and other theoretical stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on Mar 9, 2007 6:51:14 GMT 10
working on their swing!
|
|
|
|
Post by trumpetguy on Mar 9, 2007 8:47:43 GMT 10
Actually, Eric & Trane spent a lot of time together playing golf. They got away with it by telling their wives they were working on some new scales, modes and other theoretical stuff. I think you'll find that was Eric Idle and Robbie Coltrane. |
|
|
|
Post by captain on Mar 9, 2007 11:38:44 GMT 10
Ok Guts...
This was the response I was expecting, so I'll endeavour to use better words to get my perspective across - I've always had trouble articulating my opinions on this hairy area of debate.
You are absolutely correct, Shorter, Coltrane and Miles were not 'noble savages' and were totally on top of the theoretical side of the music, I want to stress I've never believed otherwise.
HOWEVER - I Do believe that at some point these universally accepted 'masters' moved on to higher plains of expression, because they were fortunate enough to be involved in longstanding innovative ensembles. (a key element in this debate)
If we take something from Coltrane's middle period, where his main concern was exploring etude like exercises in a straight ahead bebop setting, and compare it with anything from the quartet - especially 'Crescent' or the Ballads album - you can hear that he is far more concerned with musical expression rather than cerebral investigation.
The fact that Dolphy died so young means that we will never know if he was capable of something as deep as 'Crescent', so its a moot point.
Keep in mind these are subjective evaluations of their playing, but I do tend to think that alot of people would agree that the Coltrane Quartet goes way way beyond 'advanced harmony' and playing 'out'.
Once again Trane only acheived such a high level of playing because of the ensemble playing, otherwise he would be the same as Dolphy, just an very accomplished instrumentalist playing dense Harmony.
These thoughts are not related to popular or financial success, more just in the way that the 'canon' of Jazz has evolved since the 60's.
I would suggest that the reason Miles has such an enormous and long lasting influence on music is because his primary objective was emotive musical expression, not more cerebral goals.
"If you just 'can't be bothered with these mid to late 60's blue note things anymore', then I would suggest you might follow their lead and only spend your time writing your own music, coming up with your own ideas, and stop doing that repertoire."
It's been years since I listened to any of those albums properly - and while I thought it was the absolute bees knees when I was 18 or 19, the only time they come out now is when I have to learn a tune for someone else.
I would never choose to play that stuff on a gig, and would much rather play something I wrote. As to 'following their lead' - I dont think anything I write or play at the moment is particularly influenced by Hancock, Shorter, Henderson et al - but I guess its in there somewhere. You can't ever 'lose' influences completely.
|
|
|
|
Post by captain on Mar 9, 2007 11:39:58 GMT 10
Over to you! ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by alimcg on Mar 9, 2007 12:11:27 GMT 10
This argument is going to be hampered somewhat by the fact that we don't know what was going on inside Dolphy's head. It may be that he had a cerebral concept that he wanted to push - a musical agenda as it were. Or it could just as likely be that he played what he heard and it was natural to him.
How does one separate cause and effect? Did he perform like that because of what he conciously chose to practice, or did he practice those ideas because they fitted in with his musical goal - his concept? Perhaps it was inseparable, and all we ever heard was his early conceptualization. Maybe a few more years of maturing would have lead him to develop his concept more thoroughly and acquire a regular working band that was of the same capability and on the same wavelength as him. We just don't know, and are left with an insufficient body of work on which to judge his lasting effect and the lasting value of his musical concepts. Of course, all of these are personal judgements still, but at least one could produce more evidence properly supporting the argument one way or the other. Instead though, we are left with supposition, conjecture and personal taste.
Can we place a measurable value on any one musician's concepts and their contributions? How would we measure the effect that the least of Miles Davis' inspirations had on his music, and thus so much that has followed him?
|
|
