Jump to content

Review of a review of "Four MF's Playin' Tunes"


Recommended Posts

I think innovation is certainly required for jazz.

If we don't innovate in our jazz, then the Japanese will beat us, like they have in everything else.

We need to reshape our educational system to make sure our jazz can compete with the Japanese. All of our nation's children, not just a few Vijay Iyers and Robert Glaspers, need to learn how to adapt the jazz idiom to accommodate "hip-hop beats" and "odd-time signatures". Incorporating these innovations will make jazz "innovative" and "relevant" in the same way that bebop was innovative and relevant in the 1940s.

I did not know Charlie Parker personally, but I know if he were here today, he would play Anthropology in 7 with a drum 'n' bass beat behind it, and then play a Michael Jackson tune. I know this because Charlie Parker was an innovator, innovation is what's good about music, and awkwardly adapting a 70 year-old idiom constitutes innovation.

The only thing preventing modern jazz from attaining Radiohead-like popularity is the stodgy, institutionalized unwillingness to burn the Gershwin/Porter/etc repertoire to the ground and replace it with more relevant, innovative artists, like Michael Jackson.

However, I should note, these innovations and relevancies must be incorporated in an "individual" way. Jazz is an American music. America is all about individuals and individualism. Individuals are the ones who innovate relevancies. So, when you innovate relevant jazz, you have to do it in a way that is individual to you, an individual, personally. That is what John Coltrane, an individual, did.

Edited by Ben Neuman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd settle for people just having their own distinctively individual tones and time feels, And an equally distinctively personal sens of what timbres and textures to frame that with.

Not innovation, just some basic personality. Character. A unique identity. Innovate the person, not the "style".

Get that in place, then we can talk.

Or even better, not talk. Just listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think innovation is certainly required for jazz.

If we don't innovate in our jazz, then the Japanese will beat us, like they have in everything else.

We need to reshape our educational system to make sure our jazz can compete with the Japanese. All of our nation's children, not just a few Vijay Iyers and Robert Glaspers, need to learn how to adapt the jazz idiom to accommodate "hip-hop beats" and "odd-time signatures". Incorporating these innovations will make jazz "innovative" and "relevant" in the same way that bebop was innovative and relevant in the 1940s.

I did not know Charlie Parker personally, but I know if he were here today, he would play Anthropology in 7 with a drum 'n' bass beat behind it, and then play a Michael Jackson tune. I know this because Charlie Parker was an innovator, innovation is what's good about music, and awkwardly adapting a 70 year-old idiom constitutes innovation.

The only thing preventing modern jazz from attaining Radiohead-like popularity is the stodgy, institutionalized unwillingness to burn the Gershwin/Porter/etc repertoire to the ground and replace it with more relevant, innovative artists, like Michael Jackson.

However, I should note, these innovations and relevancies must be incorporated in an "individual" way. Jazz is an American music. America is all about individuals and individualism. Individuals are the ones who innovate relevancies. So, when you innovate relevant jazz, you have to do it in a way that is individual to you, an individual, personally. That is what John Coltrane, an individual, did.

Assuming this is satire, :tup :tup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not know Charlie Parker personally, but I know if he were here today, he would play Anthropology in 7 with a drum 'n' bass beat behind it

You laugh, but I think Donna Lee would sound super hip played at about 350 bpm over this kind of groove. I tried to do it with a combo last year but the guitar player was more interested in being an exact copy of Django Reinhardt and nobody could play the head that fast anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd settle for people just having their own distinctively individual tones and time feels, And an equally distinctively personal sens of what timbres and textures to frame that with.

Not innovation, just some basic personality. Character. A unique identity. Innovate the person, not the "style".

Get that in place, then we can talk.

Or even better, not talk. Just listen.

Amen, Brother Sangrey!

Before I'm interested in a person's music, he has to sound like himself. (Or she/herself.) That's more important than if they're playing chord changes or not.

The above is not a review of Mr. Marsalis' album, which I haven't heard.

Edited by jeffcrom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not know Charlie Parker personally, but I know if he were here today, he would play Anthropology in 7 with a drum 'n' bass beat behind it

You laugh, but I think Donna Lee would sound super hip played at about 350 bpm over this kind of groove. I tried to do it with a combo last year but the guitar player was more interested in being an exact copy of Django Reinhardt and nobody could play the head that fast anyway.

Something sorta kinda like that:

Now that's not particularly good, but it's because it's not being done particularly well, not because of what is being done in and of itself.

(and those w/long memories might remember the Decoding Society doing something vaguely similar with this same tune...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think innovation is certainly required for jazz.

If we don't innovate in our jazz, then the Japanese will beat us, like they have in everything else.

We need to reshape our educational system to make sure our jazz can compete with the Japanese. All of our nation's children, not just a few Vijay Iyers and Robert Glaspers, need to learn how to adapt the jazz idiom to accommodate "hip-hop beats" and "odd-time signatures". Incorporating these innovations will make jazz "innovative" and "relevant" in the same way that bebop was innovative and relevant in the 1940s.

I did not know Charlie Parker personally, but I know if he were here today, he would play Anthropology in 7 with a drum 'n' bass beat behind it, and then play a Michael Jackson tune. I know this because Charlie Parker was an innovator, innovation is what's good about music, and awkwardly adapting a 70 year-old idiom constitutes innovation.

The only thing preventing modern jazz from attaining Radiohead-like popularity is the stodgy, institutionalized unwillingness to burn the Gershwin/Porter/etc repertoire to the ground and replace it with more relevant, innovative artists, like Michael Jackson.

However, I should note, these innovations and relevancies must be incorporated in an "individual" way. Jazz is an American music. America is all about individuals and individualism. Individuals are the ones who innovate relevancies. So, when you innovate relevant jazz, you have to do it in a way that is individual to you, an individual, personally. That is what John Coltrane, an individual, did.

Assuming this is satire, :tup :tup

I sure hope so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think innovation is certainly required for jazz.

If we don't innovate in our jazz, then the Japanese will beat us, like they have in everything else.

We need to reshape our educational system to make sure our jazz can compete with the Japanese. All of our nation's children, not just a few Vijay Iyers and Robert Glaspers, need to learn how to adapt the jazz idiom to accommodate "hip-hop beats" and "odd-time signatures". Incorporating these innovations will make jazz "innovative" and "relevant" in the same way that bebop was innovative and relevant in the 1940s.

I did not know Charlie Parker personally, but I know if he were here today, he would play Anthropology in 7 with a drum 'n' bass beat behind it, and then play a Michael Jackson tune.

Very good. AND you had me going for a minute! Once past the effective sarcasm I recognized a superior mind at work. I could tell b/c your opinions and mine are identical (;
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laz, I can't get the link w/my primitave cell phone, invented by Alexander Graham Cracker himself. And there's rule 1286.43, banning direct posting of copywritten material lest the transgressor be put in stocks or made to listen to recordings of Keith Jarrett berating an audience member he caught moving during an innovative performance. I would like to read it, though. Could you email it to me? OK, time to put the cell phone to bed next to my toga, sandals, abacus, and sundial. Socrates is speaking tonight and I don't want to miss it. Word has it that he's to try out a new potion left by admirers by the lectern. I think it's called hem-something or other (;
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was polyester what killed Bill Evans, not cocaine.

Granted, they were neck and neck, so either one could have one the race, depending on where the finish line was.

But since it was where it was, polyester takes the trophy.

It was truly a combination. Because polyester does not breathe, it is harder to sweat out the toxins, so truly, the polyester exacerbated the effects of the drugs.

Now, many of the players who are keeping jazz relevant by incorporating the sounds of today (e.g. Michael Jackson, Christopher Cross, Billy Ocean, etc.) do not do drugs, so the polyester/toxin issue will be less important.

Also, they are developing new space-age polymers that combine the classic look of vintage polyester with the breathability of cotton. When they use these fibers to create 21st-century leisure suits, even drug addicts will be able to wear them without fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the only thing that matters is making good songs with beautiful, memorable melodies and rhythms and moments. The medium or category or genre is beside the point. Make enjoyable noises.

Innovations, schminovation. Make music to the best of your ability based on what you know and where you want to take it. Let the fuckers who need everything to move forward sort it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd settle for people just having their own distinctively individual tones and time feels, And an equally distinctively personal sens of what timbres and textures to frame that with.

Not innovation, just some basic personality. Character. A unique identity. Innovate the person, not the "style".

Get that in place, then we can talk.

Or even better, not talk. Just listen.

Amen, Brother Sangrey!

Before I'm interested in a person's music, he has to sound like himself. (Or she/herself.) That's more important than if they're playing chord changes or not.

The above is not a review of Mr. Marsalis' album, which I haven't heard.

Right-o.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...