Joe M Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 I just got this in the mail today from Savoy. If you thought the whole Verve Remixed thing was controversial, I guess this one just upped the ante. Just the idea of this record turned me off, and I don't consider myself to be a mouldy fig (there's some nice stuff on the new Verve Remixed 2 album). This one just makes no sense, and totally passes over the true briliance of Parker's work. People featured on the project include Me'shell NdegeOcello, Dr. John, the Kronos Quartet, Dan the Automator, Hal Willner, Hubert Laws, Ravi Coltrane, Rob Swift and others. And the record sounds as just as odd as all those names thrown together would lead one to believe. It seemed like a bad idea, and sounds like an even worse one (at least to these ears). Any thoughts on this, even the idea, if you haven't heard it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 Worse than "shit for money".!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free For All Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 Me'shell NdegeOcello Gesundheidt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 Sounds like something I won't be buying! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 Well, of course every thread like this one needs the obligatory "maybe it will turn the kids on to jazz" post, so let's pretend this is it and move on to bashing this stinker of an idea... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 I don't know. For every 5 tracks on the CD that probably do suck (totally, beyond any shadow of a doubt), there's probably 1 that's maybe kinda interesting. I'm sure I won't be buying it, but I'd love to hear it sometime. So yeah, I'm guessing there are one or maybe two tracks that are worth hearing. (80%-90% shit, but perhaps a gem or two to be found.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris olivarez Posted September 11, 2003 Report Share Posted September 11, 2003 I'd have to listen first but usually I view projects of this sort for lack of a better word-goulish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noj Posted September 11, 2003 Report Share Posted September 11, 2003 (edited) The whole "remix" thing is misdirected. For example, I was momentarily hyped when Madlib started doing the whole Yesterday's New Quintet instrumental stuff, but I came to realize the remixes sound flat and are not as satisfying as simply hearing the original song. So I did not buy Madlib's Blue Note effort, and generally avoid "remix" albums. I'd rather hear it raw. FWIW, I bought the Verve comp "Unmixed" for a nice clean version of Nina Simone's "Feeling Good." I won't buy this Charlie Parker thing either. I much prefer it when DJs combine oddball snippets to create original compositions, rather than merely reducing a complex work into hip hop measurements. The artistry of sampling is the chance taken in juxtapozing unrelated sounds; in searching for original sounds, intriguing drum loops, vocal samples, etc.; in creating unorthodox aural collages. Edited September 11, 2003 by Noj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John L Posted September 11, 2003 Report Share Posted September 11, 2003 I have heard some things by Rob Swift that sound interesting. This is something that I would definitely need to hear before laying down a big head 20. I will only agree to "money for shit" in this case if I am getting "THE shit." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted September 11, 2003 Report Share Posted September 11, 2003 So, exactly what are they doing here? "Remix" means nothing by itself... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noj Posted September 11, 2003 Report Share Posted September 11, 2003 So, exactly what are they doing here? "Remix" means nothing by itself... You're right, I shouldn't knock it 'til I hear it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted September 11, 2003 Report Share Posted September 11, 2003 I have a vague idea about what a remix is but from what I've read here it doesn't sound very good and it doesn't sound likke something I'd want to buy. It sounds desecrating to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted September 11, 2003 Report Share Posted September 11, 2003 Okay, let's not knock it until we've heard it. Then we can club this fiasco like baby seals in the Arctic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 (edited) You can sample all the tracks HERE. From just these samples (which is all I've heard), several of the tracks remind me quite a bit of Ornette's "Tone Dialing" from 1995, and I mean than in a good way. Like I predicted up above in this thread: some of the tracks are probably worthless, some are "OK", and frankly - more of the tracks sounded interesting to me than I was expecting. I'd buy this one 'used' for $8 (or maybe $9) without much hesitation. We need an icon for "half-a-thumbs-up" Hey, Joe M (the guy who started this thread), if you want to trade your copy of this for something else I've got, I'll be glad to see if I have anything you'd be interested in. I'm sorta half-curious to hear the rest of this. (And I'm no huge 'hip-hop' nut either, though I do like genre-blending in general, or at least I'm open to the idea.) Edited December 4, 2003 by Rooster_Ties Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrome Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 I haven't had a chance to listen to the samples, but the concept reminds me of some of R.L. Burnside's newer CDs. Burnside is a fantastic blues player, up in his 70s, and he started making discs with some famous (?) techno-type producers/remixers/whatever. While I wouldn't exactly call the results "blues," it is pretty fascinating stuff and definitely works for me. Especially the disc "Come on in." I'll never forget a review I read for this disc that began something like: "This is the kind of disc that will make the purists vomit ...." While I understand people who don't like this style of music because it doesn't "sound good" to them, I just can't get the attitude that rejects a kind of music because it somehow "disrespects" what a different artist has done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 While I understand people who don't like this style of music because it doesn't "sound good" to them, I just can't get the attitude that rejects a kind of music because it somehow "disrespects" what a different artist has done. Well, here's the thinking behind it: if this was original music, it would be a different story. You can play Koko on a kazoo and assorted water glasses, and you're making a legitimate statement. But from my viewpoint, if you want to use Parker's original recording of Koko, and alter it to make your statement, then as far as I'm concerned, you're disrespecting what Parker did. I won't say this makes my nose turn up as fast as those Natalie/Nat King Cole things, or (forgive me, Pops!) the Kenny G./Louis Armstrong monkeyfuck, but robbing graves is robbing graves... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 (edited) What about this??? - and even more so, THIS??? Moose, I don't buy your argument. What about visual artists who take iconography (or found objects), and present them in new contexts. And what about the great collage artists of the 60's (and probably the 50's -- all that stuff is usually 10 years before I really think it is.) Is that just "robbing the grave" too?? I'm not saying that these kinds of projects are necessarily good. But in the right hands, I think that creative things can happen, and new forms of expression developed. Not purely 'self'-expression, but a hybrid of the old and the new. Yeah, 80% of these kinds of projects are possibly crap. You're suggesting that 100% of them are crap, by definition. That's just as bad as hardbop railing against Miles after 1968, only because electricity is evil ("by definition") - doncha know. (Sangry, I think need some help here.) Moose, think it over some more... Forget who the source material is (Parker), and consider the process being undertaken, in abstract terms. If Greg Osby handed over the multi-track source tapes of a new recording of his own making, and had these remixologists do their thing, some of the results might be pretty interesting (and some would be crap). What's so intrinsically wrong with going back to earlier source material?? Or are we engaging in 'idolatry' over these Charlie Parker sides?? No, I'm not saying you have to 'like' any of the results. But you've dismissed an entire process, independent of even hearing any of the results, including the results of future projects not even yet undertaken. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. PS: This isn't all directed at Moose. Judging from most of the posts in this thread, it's directed at all of you. Please respond. Edited December 4, 2003 by Rooster_Ties Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 Once recording made the move from document to artifact, a whole new stream of evolution began, of which I see the concept of the remix as just another step. It's just a tool like overdubbing, multitracking, tape speed manipulation, etc. Whether it's "good" or not depends on the results, not the process, I'd say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrome Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 (edited) What if you take someone's original music, in the sense of their written composition, and then improvise a solo over it ... something like "My favorite things" for example? Did Coltrane's version "disrespect" the original in some way? After all he took someone else's original music and used it to make his statement. In fact, wouldn't that apply to all "cover" versions? Edited December 4, 2003 by Chrome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrome Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 And before god strikes me dead, let me just say that that Coltrane stuff was written from a "devil's advocate" point of view ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 And before god strikes me dead, let me just say that that Coltrane stuff was written from a "devil's advocate" point of view ... Good thing you said this, or we'd have to start a poll to find out if you should be banned from the board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catesta Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 Did Coltrane's version "disrespect" the original in some way? Did Coltrane dub himself in? This stuff may very well be hip, but I don't think it does anything to promote or pay respect to the genius of Parker, and frankly I don't see any creativity in it. Parker had it right the first time, leave it at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 It's really nothing new for composers to take somebody else's theme and either rearrange it or slice it up into something else. The remix has the potential to do something similar. If the results so far have ranged from tepid to insipid to disastrous to sacreligious, it's the fault of the people doing them, not the technique itself. People will make music with wahtever tools they have at their disposal, always have and always will. A lot of kids today don't want to learn instruments and conventional theory, they want to learn turntables, samplers, mixing boards, etc. Although that notion bugs me to no end, I'm more than willing to concede the possibility that things are changing in a big way, and that they ain't going back. Sound is sound and tools is tools. Remember the touting of Sgt. Peppers as a breakthrough for using the "studio as an instrument"? Well, that was just Round One... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 (edited) If the results so far have ranged from tepid to insipid to disastrous to sacreligious, it's the fault of the people doing them, not the technique itself... A lot of kids today don't want to learn instruments and conventional theory... Excuse me for quoting myself, but these two are probably connected. But it's a physical transition phase as the mental transition from analog to digital goes on its merry way. Some day... Where's Marshall McLuhan when you need him? Edited December 4, 2003 by JSngry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 This stuff may very well be hip, but I don't think it does anything to promote or pay respect to the genius of Parker, and frankly I don't see any creativity in it. Parker had it right the first time, leave it at that. Who says that this does nothing to promote or pay respect to Parker?? Maybe it does, or maybe it doesn't. Or maybe it just is what it is. It's all sound. It's either interesting, or good, or both -- or it isn't either. (Or maybe some of it is good, and the rest crap.) But to judge it without hearing it first, is to simply say that a project like this could not possibly produce results of any value. Maybe yes, maybe no. You say: "Parker had it right the first time, leave it at that." I say that this isn't mean to replace the original. You might as well be Wynton or hardbop, saying that anything that doesn't swing is crap. It's not such a long road between to those two ideologies - that certain kinds of change are good, and that certain other kinds of change are inherently bad (even before the results are evaluated). I agree that probably 80% (or maybe even 90%) of projects like this are likely to have results that are substandard, and uninteresting. I resolutely refuse to say that 100% of them are crap, simply because they are what they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.