|
|
Post by glean on Aug 26, 2006 0:05:46 GMT 10
My money is on Archer or Choulai
|
|
|
|
Post by shaggaz on Aug 26, 2006 8:41:07 GMT 10
Ya Forbes ya he studied at ANU Canberra
|
|
|
|
Post by punter on Nov 5, 2006 20:10:07 GMT 10
1 Jackson Harrison, 25, from Sydney
2 Marc Hannaford, 24, from Melbourne
3 Aaron Choulai, 24, from Melbourne
|
|
Gb
Full Member
Posts: 132
|
Post by Gb on Nov 7, 2006 12:37:32 GMT 10
ok, my 2c worth.
marc h played his arse off. i honestly thought he had it in the bag. he has a individual approach/sound - unlike that jackson guy. jackson played nice. safe. i think it was a transcription of herbie or bill...
jackson can play. no doubt about it. its just that he sounded A LOT like heaps of other players i have heard before. so why would they put jackson first?
my placing - marc, aaron, jacko
anyways, well done all...
wang was great.
Gb
|
|
|
|
Post by captain on Nov 7, 2006 12:59:45 GMT 10
I'm sure there'll be a storm of this, but Gid is totally right.
|
|
|
|
Post by glean on Nov 7, 2006 16:39:40 GMT 10
ok, my 2c worth. marc h played his arse off. i honestly thought he had it in the bag. he has a individual approach/sound - unlike that jackson guy. jackson played nice. safe. i think it was a transcription of herbie or bill... jackson can play. no doubt about it. its just that he sounded A LOT like heaps of other players i have heard before. so why would they put jackson first? my placing - marc, aaron, jacko anyways, well done all... wang was great. Gb Jackson's technique was about a billion miles ahead of all the others for a start GB. I saw all the comps. i thought Choulai. Keller and Poskitt were the most interesting and 8 out of the final 10 were good enough to make me buy their cds. I think Hannaford and Aaron looked pretty nervous in the final finals which must have affected the outcome. I heard the judges didn't agree on who would get into the final three too but Jackson topped the rest in terms of tecnhique and use of dynamics there is no doubt about that. What was really inspiring was the extent of the dioversity between the players. I dont think that would happen in the states. |
|
|
|
Post by glean on Nov 7, 2006 16:42:29 GMT 10
Oh yeah and Jackosn had to win considering he's Adrian's son from his first marriage.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj on Nov 7, 2006 17:07:19 GMT 10
shhh!
|
|
jvmac
Junior Member
Posts: 83 
|
Post by jvmac on Nov 7, 2006 17:55:27 GMT 10
I personally think that Jackson Harrison, was the winner on the day. As a punter I believe that playing the sort of music that you love, is far more important than not sounding like anyone else, and for me usually a lot more entertaining.
The competition was so good, that I was quickly hooked and sat through all ten competitors and the finals.
Vicki
|
|
|
|
Post by captain on Nov 7, 2006 20:53:12 GMT 10
Thats all rubbish. Hannaford looked nervous? what about the confident and funnny chit chat? He was the only one who engaged the band, musically and visually. Dynamics? Please... Marc played everything from a whisper to two handed smashes. Jackson played one colour and one dynamic for the whole thing. Yes, he was more virtuosic than the other two, but he sounded inexperienced and expressed nothing.
Jackson also never used his left hand for anything other than text-book 'modern' voicings. No rhythm, no counterpoint. It's a nauseating style that has evolved out of Evans and Hancock (who are mofos) which I hear hundreds of young students using, only because they've never heard Hines, James P Johnson, Jelly Roll, Ellington, Tatum, Garner, Monk, Jamal, Wilson, and most major figures of Jazz piano.
The fact that Marc 'didn't sound like anybody else' is irrelevant. The fact that he was playing more rhythm, more melody, more dynamics, more textures, and at least as much complicated harmony as the other two is reason enough to get mad. Judging them on they 'style' of music they're playing is pointless. Deal with the music, not the style.
|
|
|
|
Post by alimcg on Nov 7, 2006 20:53:46 GMT 10
I'm with Gid too, though it's hard to place guys like that when they're nothing alike. As for best mic technique, clearly Hannaford!
|
|
|
|
Post by captain on Nov 7, 2006 20:55:02 GMT 10
You're totally right about this Glen, unfortunately Jackson was the player who sounded the most 'Generic' in an American Jazz school way.
|
|
|
|
Post by glean on Nov 7, 2006 21:23:35 GMT 10
I think that style is such a subjective thing, but Jacksons 'American style, if you want to call it that is not a reason to discount him! For god's sake we are talking about an art form that orginated in America. Anyway imho Jackson deserved to win on all levels.
MH seemed real nervous to me, I thought his hands were shaking and his banter sounded nervous too, tho it could have just been excitement. But all the finalists must have had some nerves, no one is ever that 100 per cent confident in a comp or most place else. If you were totally confident you wouldnt bother with comps at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by alimcg on Nov 7, 2006 22:25:40 GMT 10
Nervous or not, his banter did it for me. Jazz comps need more "cheerios."
|
|
|
|
Post by captain on Nov 7, 2006 23:48:31 GMT 10
i'm not discounting Jackson because of his style, I was pointing out that Vicki thought he deserved to win because he played in a familiar style.
My point is that all stylistic things aside, Marc was playing much more music. I don't give a shit if a guy plays in any style, American or Scandinavian or Fitzroyian, I'm only interested in the musical aspects. Sound, Interaction, Rhythm, Melody etc. Style means nothing. Suffice to say we could put Marc in a stylistic box just as easily, (Andrew Hill, Jason Moran etc) but it means nothing once you analyse objective musical criteria.
|
|
