Rev_Beezer wrote:OTOH, I met Marcus Roberts, and he seemed to be both a great person and musician. He's of the school that the best jazz is looking at the "classic" eras, rather than looking forward (most of his performance he spent talking about Theolonius Monk).

well, there's problems with the "repertoire" school of thought too, Rev, but Roberts is prime

Loving Gilad Hekselman's subversion of "classic" jazz guitar style - like he's swallowed Jim Hall and Wes Montgomery & they're wrestling for control of his fingers

Rev_Beezer wrote:#$!&@ jazz, #$!&@ Miles Davis, the ornery jackass, Charlie Parker, who killed himself for a high, Ornette Coleman, a fraud, Bix Beiderbecke, pinheaded douche, Louis Armstrong, Uncle Tom, Duke Ellington, eat #$!&@ and die, Count Basie, sounds like a vampire, Dorsey brothers, Shenandoah jackoffs, Mahavishnu Scientologist #$!&@, #$!&@ you bongo guy from the Simpsons who wrote the song about Burns, #$!&@ you Stan Getz, dopehead, #$!&@ you Gene Krupa, #$!&@ drummer, #$!&@ you Buddy Rich, egotistical blowhard.

But Dizzy, you're okay.

WTF Beez? Is this for real? This isn't cool man.

drsmooth wrote:

Rev_Beezer wrote:OTOH, I met Marcus Roberts, and he seemed to be both a great person and musician. He's of the school that the best jazz is looking at the "classic" eras, rather than looking forward (most of his performance he spent talking about Theolonius Monk).

well, there's problems with the "repertoire" school of thought too, Rev, but Roberts is prime

Look, Marcus Roberts is great and he's a master of emulating Monk, etc... but it's this kind of mentality in both Jazz and Classical that relegate it to being stuck in the past and accused of being elitist. Or at least becoming obscure. Art forms are either progressing and evolving or getting stagnant. As well, we live in an era where people don't have to be specialists and do only one thing one way.

When music or any art-form are connected to the lives of people and their experiences -- they have relevance. Monk was derided by many. His impact occurred and continues to ripple all-be-it more dilluted now 60 years later. I'm just tired of "best" designations.

How many people still bow at the altar of 19century Germanic art-music - stuff is more than 200 years removed from its source.

I've said this now for a decade at least -- all high art forms including Jazz and Classical are at a crisis. Nothing is progressing forwards. Even pop-music is pretty stagnant now. Everything is a rehash.

I was very angry when I typed it. Every now and again I get angry and piss all over everything. Most of those musicians are people I hold near and dear to my heart.

Except Charlie Parker. He was a genius and threw it all away in the cheapest way possible.

And Miles Davis, though an excellent musician and great improviser, was a jerk and his attitude is enough to make me not listen to him as much.

I also stand behind the statement that Ornette Coleman is a fraud. A very nice guy, but he basically took the idea of "I have no idea how to play these instruments but I'll try anyway" and made a career out of it.

Also, if I could make that work I would. But there's no artistic integrity behind it at all.

Philly the Kid wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Rev_Beezer wrote:OTOH, I met Marcus Roberts, and he seemed to be both a great person and musician. He's of the school that the best jazz is looking at the "classic" eras, rather than looking forward (most of his performance he spent talking about Theolonius Monk).

well, there's problems with the "repertoire" school of thought too, Rev, but Roberts is prime

Look, Marcus Roberts is great and he's a master of emulating Monk, etc... but it's this kind of mentality in both Jazz and Classical that relegate it to being stuck in the past and accused of being elitist. Or at least becoming obscure. Art forms are either progressing and evolving or getting stagnant. As well, we live in an era where people don't have to be specialists and do only one thing one way.

When music or any art-form are connected to the lives of people and their experiences -- they have relevance. Monk was derided by many. His impact occurred and continues to ripple all-be-it more dilluted now 60 years later. I'm just tired of "best" designations.

How many people still bow at the altar of 19century Germanic art-music - stuff is more than 200 years removed from its source.

I've said this now for a decade at least -- all high art forms including Jazz and Classical are at a crisis. Nothing is progressing forwards. Even pop-music is pretty stagnant now. Everything is a rehash.

Kid, it's linear thinking of this sort that makes you sound kind of, well, simultaneously pretentious and clueless.

drsmooth wrote:Loving Gilad Hekselman's subversion of "classic" jazz guitar style - like he's swallowed Jim Hall and Wes Montgomery & they're wrestling for control of his fingers

This, I like. I will have to check out more. Thanks.

drsmooth wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Rev_Beezer wrote:OTOH, I met Marcus Roberts, and he seemed to be both a great person and musician. He's of the school that the best jazz is looking at the "classic" eras, rather than looking forward (most of his performance he spent talking about Theolonius Monk).

well, there's problems with the "repertoire" school of thought too, Rev, but Roberts is prime

Look, Marcus Roberts is great and he's a master of emulating Monk, etc... but it's this kind of mentality in both Jazz and Classical that relegate it to being stuck in the past and accused of being elitist. Or at least becoming obscure. Art forms are either progressing and evolving or getting stagnant. As well, we live in an era where people don't have to be specialists and do only one thing one way.

When music or any art-form are connected to the lives of people and their experiences -- they have relevance. Monk was derided by many. His impact occurred and continues to ripple all-be-it more dilluted now 60 years later. I'm just tired of "best" designations.

How many people still bow at the altar of 19century Germanic art-music - stuff is more than 200 years removed from its source.

I've said this now for a decade at least -- all high art forms including Jazz and Classical are at a crisis. Nothing is progressing forwards. Even pop-music is pretty stagnant now. Everything is a rehash.

Kid, it's linear thinking of this sort that makes you sound kind of, well, simultaneously pretentious and clueless.

The issue though with the 20th and 21st centuries is that movements are developed and abandoned with unbelievable rapidity, and to an extent that makes it elitist, because the music has no chance to enter a broader consciousness. The Baroque era lasted a century and a half. Bebob lasted a decade. So, going back and doing something with bebob or even Dixieland might make sense because there are unexplored possibilities with the music.

TV, I missed the entire "bebob" period

I guess I was a bit harsh on our west coast colleague. Kid, what I meant was, there's music, and there's music theory. If theorists can't keep their stuff fresh, well, too bad for them. Me, I can listen to Evan Christopher channeling Sidney Bechet til the cows come home. The pigs & chickens too, if I happen to be listening to him play live.

drsmooth wrote:TV, I missed the entire "bebob" period

I guess I was a bit harsh on our west coast colleague. Kid, what I meant was, there's music, and there's music theory. If theorists can't keep their stuff fresh, well, too bad for them. Me, I can listen to Evan Christopher channeling Sidney Bechet til the cows come home. The pigs & chickens too, if I happen to be listening to him play live.

I don't know what you mean by linear thinking? Or what you take issue with?

I have a view of the sanctioned art scene - which is mainly in music branches of Jazz or Classical which i define in the broadest terms...there may be at some point a case for "high art" with technology based music that filters in to some more popular genres.

My point, was that Roberts was sort of doing the old "Monk's the real deal... all this new fangled stuff is bunk" which is ironic since Monk himself WAS the new fangled stuff and many traditionalists of the time didn't "get it" about him. Debussy was an innovator and also a hater on other movements that were emerging in the early 1900's...ironic...


There is room for a talented guy like Roberts to pay homage to Monk and master his sensibility and add his own voice to it - and for Wynton to be a scholar and champion of the history - but they also define it in their own terms. Just like professors in the academy. "This is in, this is out" "This is legit, this is not" "This was a great, this was not a great". I just don't need that. I'm educated and have my own view of history and art.

What I can also say, is that whatever culture you look at, in whatever period of history - most art forms started on ground level as part of celebrations and ritual and story-telling of the people. The music was linked to words and dance. Jazz grew out of that too. I studied music from Ghana for a year and they had no concept of the music without the words/stories and the dance. It was all integratef. If you look at older forms from Wester European cultures or Jazz in America - same thing. Dance and chants and various forms turned in to more popular forms which people sang along or the words told stories of the times or people or culture and you could dance to it. And then it evolved more and more and as the music got more sophisticated and complex either new simple offshoots or some of the older stuff stuck around in the dance halls or juke joints.

Same with folk musics in older countries in europe.

In Jazz eventually it turned to be-bop and then hard bop Now it was hard complex and not danceable anymore.

Various other forms emerged, rock, r&B, soul - disco even - but Hip Hop was the first new genre to really pull it all back together again in a poweful way because it did what Jazz had done in the 20's and 30's. It reflected a lot of the experience of people, it told their stories or realities, the music was danceable - etc...

I like and respect Marcus Roberts who is one of the guys who has kept the tradition of Monk alive for new generations. I'ts great. I just don't need the extra comments that judge stuff in and out. There's a way to talk about it that can keep your opinion without creating an elitist conversation.

It's like Wynton dissn' Hip Hop. He entirely luvs the continuum of New Orleans, but misses how Hip Hop inherited a great deal of the purpose and relevance of New Orleans music...

Not everyone wants to contemplate more complexity.

As for my comments about the state of all art - music and other forms and my views on that - we've debated this before and Smooth you do your self a disservice to just "insult me" out of hand - as though you really know better. You can disagree or not understand and ask me to better explain or not care - but no need to be flip.

the thing is, there is nothing "unique" anymore...its all been done. Time signatures are what they are. Scales are scales. How they are manipulated has been done over and over and over again. There are artists in every genre who try to re-invent something...take an idea and alter an old idea to make something new. But really, what kind of ground are we breaking? Sometimes the most beautiful thing is the simplest thing. There are things I've heard in my life that are beautiful. I can't tell you exactly why its beautiful. It just is.

Look at a song like Dear Prudence. Its a simple song. The verse is a variation of a D chord. The chorus is like 4 chords. Its a simple progression. It was written 43 years ago. Its still beautiful today.



And that is a beautiful interpretation of the song. Is it groundbreaking or innovative? No. But its beautiful. And when I hear the Mehldau version, it stirs up great feelings inside of me. And isn't that why we listen to music? What spurs emotion in you? What gets you excited? Is it just something that is weird or different? I listen to plenty of avant garde music. Some of it gives me goosebumps. Some of it hurts my ears. I don't enjoy it more because its different, I enjoy it because of the emotions it triggers inside of me. Maybe you just look for something different in music than other people.

Kid, look up "linear" in the dictionary. then re-read your own passage:

... most art forms started on ground level as part of celebrations and ritual and story-telling of the people. The music was linked to words and dance. Jazz grew out of that too. I studied music from Ghana for a year and they had no concept of the music without the words/stories and the dance. It was all integratef. If you look at older forms from Wester European cultures or Jazz in America - same thing. Dance and chants and various forms turned in to more popular forms which people sang along or the words told stories of the times or people or culture and you could dance to it. And then it evolved more and more and as the music got more sophisticated and complex either new simple offshoots or some of the older stuff stuck around in the dance halls or juke joints.

'it started here, it went there'..."and then it evolved more and more...: etc etc etc

that's linear thinking. That's a linear conception. It's a conception; it's popular; and it's got its flaws. It's not the only conception people can have, of music, of art, of culture.

Kid, see my shorter, followup post. I admire your scholarship. I'm less taken with your explication of how it influences your appreciation of music.

FTN

I know you particularly have taken issue with me on this. There are a lot of loaded terms you have like "beauty" "stir emotion" assumptions and projections about purpose of.

I'm not atacking anyone. I'm not saying that people do not continue to have deep relationships with art/music and the like or being moved and stirred.

You mentioned scales and chords. But scales and chords are parts of Diatonicism and Chromaticism based on something called 12 tone equal temperament. It's a wonderful deep rich world that produced centuries of output in western culture and now are the foundation of most Jazz and pop and rock and movie scores.

It's not the only system.

I can see up until fairly recently continuous "new movement" "new developments" and I suspect more will come but I can't see them right now. As I've said before, I think a wall has been hit, and I think , honestly, that wall in the arts is partly because of a larger crisis of humanity.

Technology has also had a huge influence.

There is amazing art being made today. By a number of measures.

As you site, great "interpretations". Great stories of catharsis and triumph and people need this. It has merit and value. But a big part of my personal journey with music as someone involved in it, and studying it, and appreciating it, was that feeling of "the next step".

And so I just take issue with people who want to put value judgments on stuff like Marcus Roberts or Wynton Marsalis when they themselves have not invented or innovated anything substanitally knew and rely on the innovations of others. Duke Ellington and Thelonious Monk invented things and innovated. And its great to be scholars of their work and to emulate and be influenced by and pay homage to. And Marcus and Wynton have made lots of beautiful music - but just shouldn't be dissin other stuff. They can have their preferences, we all do. they can respect or not respect whatever they like - but it bothers me a bit when they put stuff down and or put themselves up with an elitist mind-set when the are very conservative in other ways.

There is a reason history recognizes certain people and not others. It's the people who pushed things forward. Right now, I only see re-articulations of forms and styles that have been around for a while now. And recombinations.

it's like I said before -- I could write Beethoven's 10th symphony or emulate a tune in the sytle of Ellington and arrange it to perfection for an orchestra just like his -- and it might sound great. People might be stirred and dig it. Luv the homage to two great musical figures -- but no one would credit me for creating something out of a time and place that had relevance - art is also tied to time and place -- we reappropriate in later generations. We keep certain things alive and try to jump in to appreciate it.

So I'll say it again. I'm all for people being passionate about life. About their music. Of "feeling" things and being stirred or calmed. The uses of music in our lives are vast.

but I've been talking about some other points, which may not be topics of interest for many.

I am trained enough to see how 12 tone equal temperament and the systems that grew out of it evolved. Went to the next step and the next and the next. The harmonic shifts coltrane introduced with Giant Steps is similar to Bartok's axis tonality. I can see the connections and systems. And then, it expires. There's no more left to yield new from that system. I've suggested that one fertile zone to expand music is with micro-tunings and tonal structures that could yield a whole new idea of harmony. But man hasn't evolved there yet or maybe never will?

Anyway...I'm not hatin on nobody. I stay out of all music threads that are about music I don't care about or find weak sauce. I'm not here to diss anyone for their musical likes.

But PtK, you use words like "crisis" which indicates that you think there's a problem. But the problem really only exists if you believe that art must be like it was from the late 19th through the first 2/3 of the 20th c. But that's an unusual period.

Now, maybe Wynton and Marcus are too dismissive of new stuff. But that's really a non-sequitor. There's art. There's going to be something new. If I knew what the something new was, I'd have already invented it and it wouldn't be new anymore.

I think we have to get over the idea that there has to be a new thing ever couple of weeks. Maybe it's a problem that we consider stuff from 20 years ago old fashioned, before we really have a chance to figure out what it is. Maybe radical innovation is over-rated. Bach was pretty good, I think. His corpus fills 155 cds. Maybe letting an artist repeat himself a few times isn't such a bad idea.

Or to put it another way--the demand for novelty leads to superficiality.

TenuredVulture wrote:But PtK, you use words like "crisis" which indicates that you think there's a problem. But the problem really only exists if you believe that art must be like it was from the late 19th through the first 2/3 of the 20th c. But that's an unusual period.

Now, maybe Wynton and Marcus are too dismissive of new stuff. But that's really a non-sequitor. There's art. There's going to be something new. If I knew what the something new was, I'd have already invented it and it wouldn't be new anymore.

I think we have to get over the idea that there has to be a new thing ever couple of weeks. Maybe it's a problem that we consider stuff from 20 years ago old fashioned, before we really have a chance to figure out what it is. Maybe radical innovation is over-rated. Bach was pretty good, I think. His corpus fills 155 cds. Maybe letting an artist repeat himself a few times isn't such a bad idea.

Or to put it another way--the demand for novelty leads to superficiality.

Yeah, TV, I don't think you are quite following me. First of all Bach is a strange case. They estimate that we only have about 1/3 of his total output. And yet, that 1/3 would take you 60 years to create. Bach like many modern name guys had minions of underlings that wrote a lot of this stuff - or he sketched out pieces and put in the figured harmonies and they essentially filled it in. But that's another matter...

I'm not even saying that any given artist need ever evolve. Though I'm quite sure that for many they would lose relevance if the kept doing the exact same thing for 40 years.

I'm talking about genres, systems and the natural evolution of systems. You can study art in history and see how it evolves.I feel as though we've hit a time in history where there is no "next step". That's different conversation with a different purpose. I care about that because I spent a large part of my life and formative years immersed in that conversation and and its tenticales. I'll say more in future gotta go -- going to see G&D (dance music)

PTK, you ever hear of the Crazy 8s? They were apparently a jazz band that played mostly colleges on the west coast in the 80s? I met their alto sax player randomly last week. Just a shot in the dark, relatively small band.

Philly the Kid wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:But PtK, you use words like "crisis" which indicates that you think there's a problem. But the problem really only exists if you believe that art must be like it was from the late 19th through the first 2/3 of the 20th c. But that's an unusual period.

Now, maybe Wynton and Marcus are too dismissive of new stuff. But that's really a non-sequitor. There's art. There's going to be something new. If I knew what the something new was, I'd have already invented it and it wouldn't be new anymore.

I think we have to get over the idea that there has to be a new thing ever couple of weeks. Maybe it's a problem that we consider stuff from 20 years ago old fashioned, before we really have a chance to figure out what it is. Maybe radical innovation is over-rated. Bach was pretty good, I think. His corpus fills 155 cds. Maybe letting an artist repeat himself a few times isn't such a bad idea.

Or to put it another way--the demand for novelty leads to superficiality.

Yeah, TV, I don't think you are quite following me. First of all Bach is a strange case. They estimate that we only have about 1/3 of his total output. And yet, that 1/3 would take you 60 years to create. Bach like many modern name guys had minions of underlings that wrote a lot of this stuff - or he sketched out pieces and put in the figured harmonies and they essentially filled it in. But that's another matter...

I'm not even saying that any given artist need ever evolve. Though I'm quite sure that for many they would lose relevance if the kept doing the exact same thing for 40 years.

I'm talking about genres, systems and the natural evolution of systems. You can study art in history and see how it evolves.I feel as though we've hit a time in history where there is no "next step". That's different conversation with a different purpose. I care about that because I spent a large part of my life and formative years immersed in that conversation and and its tenticales. I'll say more in future gotta go -- going to see G&D (dance music)

No, I'm saying that until the 20th c. evolution or whatever was slow--measured in decades and centuries. Thus, people had time to listen carefully and really develop an understanding of what they were up to and work through all the possibilities those systems presented. Now, we measure the endurance of styles in years and even months. If 20th c. music is worthwhile, and I think we'd both agree that it is, then there is a great deal of undiscovered potential there.

The next step, I argue, is to look at the explosion of ideas that started in the 20th century and work back through it with more care and attention, rather than chasing the next novelty.

To be sure, recording makes a big difference--in the 19th c. listening to music required either going to a concert or making it yourself. But now I can listen to a symphony every night of the week. But I really don't think we've figured out exactly what that means.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:But PtK, you use words like "crisis" which indicates that you think there's a problem. But the problem really only exists if you believe that art must be like it was from the late 19th through the first 2/3 of the 20th c. But that's an unusual period.

Now, maybe Wynton and Marcus are too dismissive of new stuff. But that's really a non-sequitor. There's art. There's going to be something new. If I knew what the something new was, I'd have already invented it and it wouldn't be new anymore.

I think we have to get over the idea that there has to be a new thing ever couple of weeks. Maybe it's a problem that we consider stuff from 20 years ago old fashioned, before we really have a chance to figure out what it is. Maybe radical innovation is over-rated. Bach was pretty good, I think. His corpus fills 155 cds. Maybe letting an artist repeat himself a few times isn't such a bad idea.

Or to put it another way--the demand for novelty leads to superficiality.

Yeah, TV, I don't think you are quite following me. First of all Bach is a strange case. They estimate that we only have about 1/3 of his total output. And yet, that 1/3 would take you 60 years to create. Bach like many modern name guys had minions of underlings that wrote a lot of this stuff - or he sketched out pieces and put in the figured harmonies and they essentially filled it in. But that's another matter...

I'm not even saying that any given artist need ever evolve. Though I'm quite sure that for many they would lose relevance if the kept doing the exact same thing for 40 years.

I'm talking about genres, systems and the natural evolution of systems. You can study art in history and see how it evolves.I feel as though we've hit a time in history where there is no "next step". That's different conversation with a different purpose. I care about that because I spent a large part of my life and formative years immersed in that conversation and and its tenticales. I'll say more in future gotta go -- going to see G&D (dance music)

No, I'm saying that until the 20th c. evolution or whatever was slow--measured in decades and centuries. Thus, people had time to listen carefully and really develop an understanding of what they were up to and work through all the possibilities those systems presented. Now, we measure the endurance of styles in years and even months. If 20th c. music is worthwhile, and I think we'd both agree that it is, then there is a great deal of undiscovered potential there.

The next step, I argue, is to look at the explosion of ideas that started in the 20th century and work back through it with more care and attention, rather than chasing the next novelty.

To be sure, recording makes a big difference--in the 19th c. listening to music required either going to a concert or making it yourself. But now I can listen to a symphony every night of the week. But I really don't think we've figured out exactly what that means.

I think certain things evolve as a natural progression when something before it has been exhausted. In other cases, it happens seemingly out of nowhere but perhaps part of a time or place or moment in history. The entire world has sped up in the last 100 years. Planes, cars, phones, computers, internet, satellite. Scientific, population explosion. No doubt - and the 20th century produced a LOT of art - and pop art and world events. And perhaps some of the genres, styles and movements haven't been exhausted or explored fully - I tend to feel that there's just so much volume and how people find there way to things is often complicated and so people may still be making new discoveries. But for someone like me, who has made much of his life about this - I just can't enjoy or get as excited about certain moments as a consumer of art as I once did. Because the "new discovery factor" is for the most part, gone. It was a big part of my passion. I sit somehwere, a film, a concert, two nights ago I went to the ballet with a honey, and then last night I was a club watching big time DJ with all-ages kids packed in waviging their arms, know the words, glow sticks ... on x perhaps -- and yet none of it is seeing or hearing or experiencing a form, sound, story, metaphor, that I haven't experienced before. It might be entertaining or their might be a moment that I personally just "like", but its like "yeah yeah, been there...already..."

I believe when it comes to music, that music will evolve when man kind does a paradigm shift.