|
|
Post by captain on Apr 19, 2007 16:29:32 GMT 10
By the time Trane and the 4tet were cranking, Tranes tone had achieved some of that distant quality that Miles and Wayne had, a sort of isolated singularity. Careful there Gator, Let's not forget that 4tet was peaking in 64-65, before Miles and Wayne got their shit together... If anything Wayne took a few more years to catch up to Trane... |
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on Apr 19, 2007 16:32:29 GMT 10
Yes he's a hero to us, but he doesn't play to be the Hero. We can have a romantic view to him, that doesn't make him a romantic. I see the point on his love for the music, but love isn't romance nor romance love.
A tub of yoghurt hey? Whatever turns you on.
|
|
gator
Full Member
Posts: 203
|
Post by gator on Apr 19, 2007 16:50:56 GMT 10
Careful there Gator, Let's not forget that 4tet was peaking in 64-65, before Miles and Wayne got their shit together... If anything Wayne took a few more years to catch up to Trane...[/quote]
I wasnt speaking of it in terms of a time frame -although Miles' sound was well documented prior to 64 -
|
|
gator
Full Member
Posts: 203
|
Post by gator on Apr 19, 2007 17:14:21 GMT 10
Yes he's a hero to us, but he doesn't play to be the Hero. We can have a romantic view to him, that doesn't make him a romantic. I see the point on his love for the music, but love isn't romance nor romance love. A tub of yoghurt hey? Whatever turns you on. True- I really have no idea of how Trane viewed the world - I only know how I do...and my point about Romanticism has nothing at all to do with "romantic love". Does anyone who we really consider to be "heroic" actually play the hero?Dont think so...But if someone inspires someone else to work with the same passion and commitment then isn't there at least some notion of romanticism in that?Beauty reproduces itself...I'd have thought that was romantic. |
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on Apr 19, 2007 17:51:18 GMT 10
Maybe not who 'we' consider a hero, but I recon there are those deliberate heroic types that are seen as heroes. Jane Rutter is a hero to some, like the woman on that drive show on ABC. I've had heroes in the past that I now am not so herosized (do you like that word?) about.
I get your take on the romantic vibe re the "Beauty reproduces itself", but does the reason for something recreate itself in the resultant action? Romantic view = romantic action?
A Bhuddist, for example, might have a non-violent response to even their own anger. Could be the same for a romantic feeling?
|
|
|
|
Post by trumpetguy on Apr 19, 2007 18:04:19 GMT 10
By the time Trane and the 4tet were cranking, Tranes tone had achieved some of that distant quality that Miles and Wayne had, a sort of isolated singularity. Careful there Gator, Let's not forget that 4tet was peaking in 64-65, before Miles and Wayne got their shit together... If anything Wayne took a few more years to catch up to Trane... big call.... reckon Miles had his shit together way before 64-65.....Kind of Blue, Sketches of Spain, etc, etc,etc,etc,etc |
|
|
|
Post by captain on Apr 19, 2007 18:58:11 GMT 10
I didn't mean Miles as a player - of course he was killing by then - I meant the band sound/concept. Compare the way Miles' band is playing in 64 with 67, its not until 67 that they begin to have the same level of badarseness as Trane in 64. It's a later band chronologically.
|
|
gator
Full Member
Posts: 203
|
Post by gator on Apr 19, 2007 19:28:37 GMT 10
Maybe not who 'we' consider a hero, but I recon there are those deliberate heroic types that are seen as heroes. Jane Rutter is a hero to some, like the woman on that drive show on ABC. I've had heroes in the past that I now am not so herosized (do you like that word?) about. I get your take on the romantic vibe re the "Beauty reproduces itself", but does the reason for something recreate itself in the resultant action? Romantic view = romantic action? no,not necessarily.. We cant know the reason - its not our job to know someone else's reason for doing anything - thats a divine mystery.Its our job to get to know our own reasons or ideals. Romanticism is really a kind of Idealism that applies solely to whatever you find beautiful. John Howard probably finds George Bush beautiful, who knows? Romanticism isnt a qualification of something good or bad -its an idealistic perception of something. Most of us would not be here unless we had ideals about music - we dont use the word beauty so much but generally we do not as artists try and create what is abhorrent to us. But your Bhuddist might find his own anger beautiful, your own ideals about music might be seen and heard as romantic by someone, guts - and you might inspire someone to find their own ideals from that - I think thats Romanticism.. I find Coltranes music and playing beautiful -even though he plays the saxophone! I dont romanticise about the reality of what it took him to become that good and that special as a musician -but I love his music -enough to check out what I know of what he checked out - transcribe him, labour over interpolations and extrafuckinghardpolations, and Im not even a sax player..whether the result is beautiful or not is a matter of hope. |
|
|
|
Post by bodgey on Apr 19, 2007 22:38:10 GMT 10
Captain - You're always fucking wrong - apart from coining 'badarseness' - full marks.
I just skimmed through all that shit, so forgive me for wading in, but the difference between 'being romantic' and 'romanticism' as an ideal and idiom as being confused. AliMcG is on the money - it's pretty darn subjective.
Adjectives are fucked anyway. That's my conclusion from all this nonsense of calling something 'bad' when in fact it's 'good'.
Yes, I just contradicted myself. So fucking what.
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by alimcg on Apr 19, 2007 23:46:47 GMT 10
Quote of the day - "Adjectives are fucked anyway." MJB, 19/4/07
|
|
gator
Full Member
Posts: 203
|
Post by gator on Apr 20, 2007 9:15:43 GMT 10
I just skimmed through all that shit, so forgive me for wading in, but the difference between 'being romantic' and 'romanticism' as an ideal and idiom as being confused. AliMcG is on the money - it's pretty darn subjective. Hey - Isnt confusion a sign of advanced thinking? I must be a genius. |
|
|
|
Post by trumpetguy on Apr 20, 2007 9:25:59 GMT 10
I didn't mean Miles as a player - of course he was killing by then - I meant the band sound/concept. Compare the way Miles' band is playing in 64 with 67, its not until 67 that they begin to have the same level of badarseness as Trane in 64. It's a later band chronologically. Please define Badarseness. Surely you're not saying Miles' band sound/concept was not at the forefront in its earlier incarnations - you need to put those bands in context - from the mid 50's on....Coltrane came out of one of those bands. |
|
|
|
Post by alimcg on Apr 20, 2007 10:15:58 GMT 10
Isn't Captain just referring to that incarnation of Miles' band - comparing them with the classic Coltrane Quartet?
|
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on Apr 20, 2007 10:53:23 GMT 10
Yes context trumptguy, Miles's's's band always kicked arse, it just developed. On reflection we may go, 66 they went harder than 64, but in 64, what they were doing in 66 didn't exist the way they did it then. Now thats confusing. I'm sure you know what I mean. It' the same for the Trane 4, the band developed.
Hey Gator, I think our discussion needs to be done over a few bottles of whatever for some hours. I'm sure we're coming from similar places it just comes down to terminology. I do find the subject very interesting and think it's a wroth wile one for us to think about.
Bodgey, Of course it will come down to being subjective, but it's easy then never to discuss anything because it's all fucking subjective. I recon healthy discussion like this is not about the end result of good/bad or right/wrong, it's about the exploration of an idea. I don't disagree with Gator, I'm just trying to work out this romantic vibe, tis fun to get peoples ideas and see your own change.
I've had plenty of students go " I'm not into that, so I don't practice it" , to me thats lame. As artists we should check it all out and get an insight into things properly before we start forming too many rigid opinions. The classic jazz thing is to be into Free or into Bebop. There are plenty of Bebop players that would benefit greatly ( yes in my view, it's subjective) from exploring Free playing, and vice versa too.
|
|
gator
Full Member
Posts: 203
|
Post by gator on Apr 20, 2007 10:55:47 GMT 10
Isn't Captain just referring to that incarnation of Miles' band - comparing them with the classic Coltrane Quartet? I think he was...but actually what I was referring to, was the quality of their individual sounds on the instrument - Miles certainly had that extremely "lonely" tone back in the fifties - and Wayne developed his own thing certainly from hearing Coltrane and then in the context of his own music and the 5tet from the mid 60's but do you think Trane was ever widely recognized for having that same 'soul' in his sound the way those guys were?Not until later on I think... I have heard Coltrane referred to as cold, spiritual, abstract,possessed,clinical etc, and yet as I think Captain points out, his playing,especially on ballads and that Hartman record is intensely soulful without being sentimental. |
|
