Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
rostasi

Prince is dead

210 posts in this topic

On 27 April 2016 at 6:31 AM, JSngry said:

Oh, I'm reminded of the Hendrix fanatic I knew in high school, an African-American kid of 15 or so who told me in no uncertain terms that jazz was for white folks now and that Hendrix was the real black music of today. I mean, he was passionate about this, his pov was that all the old jazz was cool in its time, but that for today, for what he felt as black music for his times, Hendrix was it.

That was, like 1972 or so, and his was not a majority viewpoint amongst his peers of any race. And of course, we're talking about kids here (but kids who were not informed by jsut bullet points, either, limited exposures, perhaps, but definitely processing information as it came, not just receiving it as it was preached). But let today's record reflect that this friend of mine was by no means alone either, if not about jazz, then definitely about Hendrix being black music, no matter who was playing it or digging it. Also let it be known that that opinion is by no means dead today, either.

I graduated and left town before Pete Cosey really blew up on the scene, but I would have loved to have hung with him to hear what he thought about that!

I need to get my daughter's friends to check out Maggot Brain, if they haven't already done so. This friend of mine, he knew Maggot Brain, now, you better believe that!

yeah anybody that reckons Hendrix wasn't a game changer for Black American Music and musicians is completely ignorant. Blood Ulmer talks about the fact nobody wanted to hire guitar players before Hendrix and afterwards how everybody wanted a guitar in 'rarefied' music circles. And that's just talking about improvised music. He always speaks respectfully of Hendrix and refers to him as 'that brother'. And just to further back up what you say, I recently had the privilege to spend a few days with a young African American guitar player (young to me anyway), he is from Mississippi and from a family of longstanding Hill Country Blues People. He wore his Hendrix hat and has a Hendrix persona on stage (in a laconic way). I made a bit of a jibe about his Hendrix thing...he let me know in no uncertain terms that HE had learnt and mastered Hendrix's music 'by the time he was 13" and devoted many schoolwork essays to the man himself. Was one of the happiest times of my life those few days! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Scott Dolan said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/04/22/defying-description-zz-tops-billy-gibbons-on-prince-the-sensational-guitarist/

Billy Gibbons? Huge Prince fan. 

It's been great to see such respected artists come out and say the things their fans won't. One can only wonder where Brotzmann stands on Prince. 

Based on this quote by Ruby Braff (from a Chicago Tribune piece that Larry Kart wrote in 1985 and just posted in another thread) I'd bet Ruby Braff would also be an admirer of Prince:

"I like to dramatize a tune and I'm always trying to communicate, which is the difference between being a performer and a musician. There are many musicians but they aren't performers. They're just instrumentalists who belong in an orchestra reading charts." Followed by: "Show business - I love show business. If I had my way, I'd be up there with dancers and magicians and lights and everything." 

I would add that many good performers use the trappings of show business to obscure their average musical abilities while, in other cases, the excellent musicianship of good performers is unfairly discounted. In the case of Prince, his abilities as a performer and a musician were at the same high level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29 April 2016 at 11:47 PM, jazzbo said:

Interesting Robert. I really connect with Prince. Never connected with Michael or Madonna. I can really respect Micheal's talent, but his work has done little for me. Prince I'm in awe of his talent and really have enjoyed his work since his first LP. Life is good, there is so much music to explore, and some of it GREAT.

I know Prince is great Lon. I loved those first albums too. I remember seeing the clips for Controversy and Sexuality etc before he really hit it big with Little Red Corvette etc. I will look forward to the many listening suggestions of everyone. I really will. I think I was just taking things back to the context of when Prince first emerged and how it was around the same time as Madonna, who I will never need to pay the time of day too as a listener or anything really. I expect that her music will eventually fade and she will be remembered as an ephemeral Pop Culture footnote more or less. I'm sure Michael and Prince will be around a much much longer time. I suppose the point I was getting at was when Prince first hit public consciousness, Michael was in the middle of those albums Off The Wall, Thriller and maybe Bad, which were like a game changing moment in Popular music, based on his lifetime of apprenticeship, they culminated in his defining move and contribution. I think those songs and production carry the weight of that too. They sound monumental in this regard to me. Prince was only beginning his vision then, and I guess he never eventually got to pack the definitive wallop that Michael delivered. But I agree with the general tenor that Prince's music became ultimately more expansive and nuanced in many ways further away from the masses of Popular consumption. And that he did this by his own ways and means. It's sad that he is lost to the world so young. Immensely sad. That Stevie Wonder interview says it all really. It's heartbreaking to watch. This is a great thread by the way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Popular v. unpopular debate aside, one of the chief reasons that the showmanship v. non-showmanship thing sticks in my craw is because the whole "just sit down and play" thing doesn't apply with equal meaning to all kinds of music. Physical animation will not mean the same thing if you are playing a Paganini Concerto, a barwalking saxophone solo, or Hendrixian histrionics, respectively--and that's twofold.

On the one hand, certain gestures have certain coded meanings inside of certain contexts. Yes, if Bill Evans got up in the middle of a piano solo and started thumping on the keys with his foot, it would be absolutely asynchronous with his art--not to mention a breach of conduct within his likely performance context. The Ruby Braff quote Ted offers a couple of posts up is pretty pointed, however--there are plenty of great musicians who might not be considered great performers, but modes of performance are greatly variable.

Even many of the folks we might consider "austere" or "formal" engaged with codes and practices that carried a lot of weight in certain areas: for example, Coltrane was pretty serious about the whole band wearing suits and ties for a time--a way, in part, to tie his nascent art music into respectability practices more closely tied to the concert hall. (There are other sociopolitical things tied into that, too, and maybe someone else here is better equipped to deal with all that than I--maybe even a whiff of post-Nation of Islam code of public conduct, but that may be pretty specious.) On the other hand, watch virtually any video of mature/late Trane--he absorbed plenty of the exaggerated physical mannerisms of the Texas barwalking/freak-out tenor tradition. He did not stand still. Hell, find the extant videos of Ayler--he's literally jumping up and down half of the time. Finally, returning to the clothing thing, when the Miles band eschewed the suit and tie thing, it was most certainly and overtly to tap into the performance psychology of what was then youth music--and whether or not these practices actually negatively or positively affected his music has to be tied, in part, to your appreciation of electric Miles and/or the phenomenon of electricity in jazz in general.

Here's the part two of the twofold thing, and it's way more important for me as a performer or musician--the execution of a lot of these coded practices often has very deliberate musical effects. The obvious example is Hendrix. There is this perplexing (to me) psychology that, if you're performing guitar stagecraft with maximum efficiency, it should not leave any sonic artifacts. This suggests a physical/sonic divide that is just not present in the continuum of black music--or, rather, not present in the same way.

It's a hop, skip, and a jump away between screaming so hard that you're chording (e.g., JB) and playing guitar with your teeth. If any of y'all are practicing singers, you know that screaming is a physical and potentially harmful phenomenon--it can be done dozens of different ways and to varying degrees of practicality and safety. All the same, each of these methods have different sounds and inflections--a spectrum that encompasses, yes, Prince, the Pixies' Black Francis, and Diamanda Galas. Similarly, the process of playing guitar with your teeth is so chaotic and circumstantial in character (just A/B the fifty legal versions of Hendrix's "Hey Joe" for perspective) that it can't help but leave sonic artifacts--it's tied to the kind of guitar you're using, the shape of your teeth, your relative volume, your effects chain (if any), etc. etc. 

The point is, not only do many of these physical gestures have sonic effects, but (1) sometimes the fundamental chaoticism of these effects is desired, if not imperative, and (2) you can learn how to control these effects with some level of practice and consistency. Study your Hendrix, if so inclined--watch an arch performance like the one at Monterey or even something slightly tireder like the Berkeley stuff from 1970. It's not just bullshit stagecraft. Playing with your teeth, behind your head, behind your back, grazing the strings with your elbow, masturbatory glissandi, showy divebombs with the tremolo bar, etc. etc.--every single one of those gestures produces a sound (whether it means just rearranging your body or actually striking the strings), and when you're cranked up to volume levels where the feedback is absolutely explosive, every one of those sounds is magnified tenfold. If you're good enough (like a Prince, or Buddy Guy), you learn how to incorporate these songs into your vocabulary--if you're great at it (like I'd argue Hendrix was), they become such a seamless part of your sonic universe that people think you're just fooling around.

Anyway, people tend to shit all over showmanship and stagecraft because--and they're often right--they sometimes have nothing to do with how the music is produced. This is not unilaterally correct, and (there's a deeper debate/discussion to be had about this) I get the sense that a lot of the debate has to do with instances of severe culture clash, misapprehension, and (in the worst cases, of which I'd assume absolutely no one here is guilty) stuff like racism and cultural erasure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Karl says.

Posting this for the live bit only, and also, primarily, "Hippodelphia" as a JB-esque songlinker. That is at once uber geeky and user hip. Hippodelphia.

And let's talk about how many people in any line of work can put together a live show this tight and a record that is every bit as tight more or less by themselves.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TedR said:

Based on this quote by Ruby Braff (from a Chicago Tribune piece that Larry Kart wrote in 1985 and just posted in another thread) I'd bet Ruby Braff would also be an admirer of Prince:

"I like to dramatize a tune and I'm always trying to communicate, which is the difference between being a performer and a musician. There are many musicians but they aren't performers. They're just instrumentalists who belong in an orchestra reading charts." Followed by: "Show business - I love show business. If I had my way, I'd be up there with dancers and magicians and lights and everything." 

I would add that many good performers use the trappings of show business to obscure their average musical abilities while, in other cases, the excellent musicianship of good performers is unfairly discounted. In the case of Prince, his abilities as a performer and a musician were at the same high level. 

Agreed. The Mothers wore dresses, performed crazy skits, brought audience members up on stage to participate in the madness, etc. Does that mean they were showmen, masterful artists, or both? The thing that has struck me is how much artists get it, while fans seem to create alliances while sneering at those they feel unworthy. They rival sports fans in many ways, when you think about it. Those guys in the blue and white uniforms? Great, infallible heroes. Those guys in the green and white uniforms? Hated loser enemies. It's all quite silly, IMO. But, I suppose there is a lot of human nature wrapped up in that. 

robertoart, I have to disagree with your assessment of Madonna. She completely rewrote the book on who and what a female Pop artist could be. Like a Virgin, and Like a Prayer were just as groundbreaking and timeless as albums like Purple Rain and Thriller. She was one of the first artists of any gender to become a multimedia phenomenon, especially considering Erotica and the movie that came of that tour. Not to mention her turn as Eva Peron in a major motion picture. Then she reinvented herself with the outstanding Ray Of Light album (the only album of hers that I own, and thoroughly enjoy). I don't see any possibility of her becoming a cultural footnote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott Dolan said:

robertoart, I have to disagree with your assessment of Madonna. She completely rewrote the book on who and what a female Pop artist could be. Like a Virgin, and Like a Prayer were just as groundbreaking and timeless as albums like Purple Rain and Thriller. She was one of the first artists of any gender to become a multimedia phenomenon, especially considering Erotica and the movie that came of that tour. Not to mention her turn as Eva Peron in a major motion picture. Then she reinvented herself with the outstanding Ray Of Light album (the only album of hers that I own, and thoroughly enjoy). I don't see any possibility of her becoming a cultural footnote.

Yes. I wasn't being fair to her achievements in that regard. i was being biased towards Michael and Prince, probably because I'm more from that side of the fence musically. She changed things as you say. It's true. And I remember Ray Of Light to, or the title song anyway, which is my favourite Madonna also. It had a real sunny vibe to it. It was uplifting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The title track was great, but I personally thought Frozen took the album to all new heights. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting to read these impressions. Robert. . . as regards Michael. . . I just don't see his accomplishments the same way because I haven't studied the music, it hasn't reached out and really made me do so. I have an odd relationship with popular music because I've just steered away from it much of my life. Coming back from Africa I never got into the habit of radio that my peers were in, and as a result I didn't get into the same music many of them did. My first experience of music independent of my parents classical and swing collection was filtered in from Ethiopian and Southern African music heard in the air and in person and the music mostly secondhand that came from the BBC via shortwave or Radio Lorenzo Marques  in the dorms and the records of the students in the dorms with me in boarding school. Back in America I ended up encountering Miles' "New Directions in Music" and Muddy Waters and Howlin' Wolf and other Chicago blues artists, led both places by the love of Hendrix that grew in Swaziland. I pursued these records via the library and private collections of people I encountered and records found in music stores, and I was firmly into a stream of fusion, blues, funk and jazz recordings in the 'seventies and 'eighties, while around me friends and others were playing Foghat and Bad Company and Zeppelin and Bowie and Yes and Tull and Genesis and Floyd. I paid lip service to these, really did get into some of the Bowie, Yes and Tull, but was rather out of the popular radio loop. I didn't know anyone in the 'seventies that was really into the music I was really getting into, I was a loner in many ways. Into the 'eighties my contact with radio lessened still further but Prince did filter into the rotation and I followed him from his first album on. Michael's contributions to the pop world really were both there and not there for me. I heard but didn't have a perspective to assess his work within nor a desire to learn of it's importance or be further exposed. Same with Madonna, to an even lesser extent, the music meant nothing to me and I was not in dance clubs to experience it in that light. I wasn't watching TV, I was beginning to play drums and rehearse in bands and I had the good fortune to be in bands led by songwriters and guitarists who wanted to do their own music, and so my knowledge of popular music of the time was limited to how it came into play in their composing and arranging and playing. I kept getting more and more into jazz and by the time that CD production ramped up and all these jazz reissues hit the market that was where I was spending my dollars and splurged as much of my time learning and talking about jazz as I could. This century with the help and example of a few persons (Jim R I'm thinking of you in there) I became interested in Brazilian music and later still began exploring classical music from the roots that had been watered by my Dad. 

So what really matters to me is what I like and am interested in. I read really interesting material by you, and Jim and Larry and others and sometimes my eyes just glaze over. I'm just not that interested in analyzing music like that any longer, it just doesn't seem important to me. I know what I like, I like what I like and I pursue what I like. And I try to respect what others like. Prince was someone I pursued through the years. His music was part of my own soundtrack. I saw him develop and I moved along with his music. It was surprising to see him get the big attention with the Revolution and then surprising to see him lose control of that attention as he got more funky. And nice to see his little jumps forward as he came into attention again. How he fits in within the hierarchy of "Popular" I really haven't as much knowledge about as others here, and that is of little import to me. Michael and Madonna really haven't been important in my listening world and their music really doesn't mean much to me. Prince's music has been and does. I saw him as a similar sort of artist as Duke, and it's so sad that his life was cut too short, I know in the future Prince's music would have been there for me to enjoy and now that's not going to happen. I adjust, but it's too bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most interesting discussion here, thanks everyone (and particularly Jim and Karl, as usual :))

But I'd rather not read silly stuff like "put Brötzmann on the stage in so-and-so stadium in front of gazillions of people and see what happens" ... I hold him in high esteem (much higher than many here seem to, I can't hear that Ayler-rip-off sheet and all that any more, and I'm also pretty convinced that his high energy thing - you might call it shtick, so be it, then, your loss - is quite unique still, and has no real counterpart in US jazz or improvised music - different discussion, different geography (as has been mentioned above, so please ahere to that, thanks), different lineage, obviously not without some cross-pollination (hey, Prince made use of 19c romantic music, too, after all, and if that's fine - and I bet it's not, at least not for everybody at all times, but - then I guess it kinda should be okay-ish at least if yurpeens play some kind of jazz, and even more so if they actually do develop their own thing, right?). Brötzmann, for one, chose the underground path and he can take it, props to that.

This is really off-topic, but I had to get it off of my chest nonetheless, after all it was triggered by some minor silliness here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well said, king. And kudos for making more of a parenthetical statement than a literal one! Pretty impressive!

I think the biggest kink in the argument of "give Brotzmann the resources of Prince, blah, blah, blah", is that those resources actually EXIST because of what Prince was doing. He was producing funky and easily accessible music MEANT for a mass audience. He just did it better than 99.99% of all the rest that have tried. If he had phoned it in and put out a bunch of plastic bullshit like most Pop artists do, the resources wouldn't have been there because the audience would have eventually seen through what he was doing, and moved on to the next flavor of the year. 

Prince had a vision of making the very best music he could, but making it accessible enough to get regular airplay, sell lots of albums, and fill arenas/stadiums. Brotzmann had a vision of wringing every last goddamn square millimeter out of his horn, and wasn't really concerned about becoming rich by doing so. I'm just not sure why one or the other was supposedly "wrong". 

Edited by Scott Dolan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a question to get your Internet crime on with - if Sly had not so totally crashed and burned, what kind of a landscape would Prince have been stepping onto? Musical and social?

Seems like daggers were out for Sly, also seems like he was the easiest of targets too. If not a willing target, then an ill-equipped one. Seems like Prince always had his eyes open as he went about the whole boundary dissolving game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Scott: Yeah, I know, should drop those parentheses, even failed to close them all - glad this isn't a maths exam :)

@Jim: Don't assume you're addressing me, but it's pretty obvious Sly was one of the most important ones in the lines of Prince's ancestors - times change as well though and it seems Prince was indeed on top of the game most of the time, while Sly was probably not, but educate us if you really know about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, just making sure that Sly doesn't get left out of the conversation, that's all. He's easily taken for granted these days, and perhaps understandably so, and the gap between his biggest impact and Prince's first was such that whole other elements of Pop Identity got a place at the table, but in his time, Sly was a profound musical and social power for many of the reasons that Prince spoke to. And then he self destructed (although probably with some help), and then...no more of that, although the Clinton umbrella would kinda keep it alive under one roof, just not under one name, and those guys never tweaked the gender role thing the way that either Sly or Prince did.

Just some idle what-iffery, Internet candy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been listening to his last release, Hit 'n Run Phase 2 and it's really good. Nice horn arrangements and decent sound for a modern pop record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, JSngry said:

Ah, just making sure that Sly doesn't get left out of the conversation, that's all.

oh well, definitely not something I'll ever be guilty of :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 1, 2016 at 2:20 PM, robertoart said:

He probably stands in a bar in some German Beer Hall with a schooner of that Elephant beer saying.....

"Preence, Preence,..... das ist gut. We jam in little bar in Munich das nicht. Preence is a motherfucker!!!" 

***

***

I don't think anyone least of all Prince would diminish-- or not mourn for-- Sly, not least because he hired Larry Graham, Rosie Gaines & Cynthia Robinson. Greg Tate made the point-- not sure how far I'd really take it but...-- that Sly and Prince both outsiders, or at least outside major black population centers...

But what can you say about Sly musically after "Fresh" except sorry it happened that way? On the Mike Douglas Show, that's something else--

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No disputing that Sly was a musical and fashion and stage manner predecessor and influence on Prince. I listen to Prince a lot more (in part because there IS a lot more to listen to) and in part because Prince's music is tighter and over time his stylistic stamp became more concise, I like that. Sly paved the way for many aspects of the Prince stage and public presence, and Prince took that next level and added a bit more overt sexuality and the ambiguous sexuality to the mix. To be honest I'm often amazed that he got away and past that in the magnifying glass of American media and public opinion.

I listened to a bit of Duke and then Ducal side projects like small groups and the Reprise "productions" of Dollar Brand and his wife and Bud. . . and then listened to some of the Jill Jones and Appolonia 6 and The Time productions and followed it up with the final Prince release. Like Duke's these projects of Prince's held his stamp and his vision, though overshadowing the featured artist a bit more. (Sly also, in my limited explorations along these lines, had a stamp and vision on the work of others). I like artists like these that can't seem to rest and are moving forward, and sideways. 

Edited by jazzbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1 May 2016 at 8:28 AM, jazzbo said:

It's interesting to read these impressions. Robert. . . as regards Michael. . . I just don't see his accomplishments the same way because I haven't studied the music, it hasn't reached out and really made me do so. I have an odd relationship with popular music because I've just steered away from it much of my life. Coming back from Africa I never got into the habit of radio that my peers were in, and as a result I didn't get into the same music many of them did. My first experience of music independent of my parents classical and swing collection was filtered in from Ethiopian and Southern African music heard in the air and in person and the music mostly secondhand that came from the BBC via shortwave or Radio Lorenzo Marques  in the dorms and the records of the students in the dorms with me in boarding school. Back in America I ended up encountering Miles' "New Directions in Music" and Muddy Waters and Howlin' Wolf and other Chicago blues artists, led both places by the love of Hendrix that grew in Swaziland. I pursued these records via the library and private collections of people I encountered and records found in music stores, and I was firmly into a stream of fusion, blues, funk and jazz recordings in the 'seventies and 'eighties, while around me friends and others were playing Foghat and Bad Company and Zeppelin and Bowie and Yes and Tull and Genesis and Floyd. I paid lip service to these, really did get into some of the Bowie, Yes and Tull, but was rather out of the popular radio loop. I didn't know anyone in the 'seventies that was really into the music I was really getting into, I was a loner in many ways. Into the 'eighties my contact with radio lessened still further but Prince did filter into the rotation and I followed him from his first album on. Michael's contributions to the pop world really were both there and not there for me. I heard but didn't have a perspective to assess his work within nor a desire to learn of it's importance or be further exposed. Same with Madonna, to an even lesser extent, the music meant nothing to me and I was not in dance clubs to experience it in that light. I wasn't watching TV, I was beginning to play drums and rehearse in bands and I had the good fortune to be in bands led by songwriters and guitarists who wanted to do their own music, and so my knowledge of popular music of the time was limited to how it came into play in their composing and arranging and playing. I kept getting more and more into jazz and by the time that CD production ramped up and all these jazz reissues hit the market that was where I was spending my dollars and splurged as much of my time learning and talking about jazz as I could. This century with the help and example of a few persons (Jim R I'm thinking of you in there) I became interested in Brazilian music and later still began exploring classical music from the roots that had been watered by my Dad. 

So what really matters to me is what I like and am interested in. I read really interesting material by you, and Jim and Larry and others and sometimes my eyes just glaze over. I'm just not that interested in analyzing music like that any longer, it just doesn't seem important to me. I know what I like, I like what I like and I pursue what I like. And I try to respect what others like. Prince was someone I pursued through the years. His music was part of my own soundtrack. I saw him develop and I moved along with his music. It was surprising to see him get the big attention with the Revolution and then surprising to see him lose control of that attention as he got more funky. And nice to see his little jumps forward as he came into attention again. How he fits in within the hierarchy of "Popular" I really haven't as much knowledge about as others here, and that is of little import to me. Michael and Madonna really haven't been important in my listening world and their music really doesn't mean much to me. Prince's music has been and does. I saw him as a similar sort of artist as Duke, and it's so sad that his life was cut too short, I know in the future Prince's music would have been there for me to enjoy and now that's not going to happen. I adjust, but it's too bad.

This is a fascinating read. It got me thinking about Hendrix as a gateway to a lifelong love of Black Music. Your experience though is so unique!!!  to have been around and open to Indigenous African music at the same time. It's amazing how music is like a life force to many, whether we are professionals or not. Apart from radio which was always by my ear, I also had the ubiquitous influence of 'music on television' in the days before the MTV concept became a standard. Many homegrown Aussie Tv shows were devoted to Pop music, as well as some late night shows that were more open about the kinds of music they showed, although it was usually always Rock and Pop related. But in thinking about Hendrix, I came to him after being a Beatle Kid in the late 70's and then absorbing a series of cassettes from my mates Aunty - consisting of all the kinds of Classic Rock that you mention as well. However when I heard Hendrix and Band Of Gypsies, I realised I must have developed an ear for extended improvisation and I had the instinct and concentration for that. And I also wonder, if the essence of his music lead my ears (or spirit), towards an essential attraction to Black American Music overall, because nothing much else ever really stuck with me at heart very much after that time. (I also heard Wes Montgomery's Organ album with Mel Rhyne around the same time, I was 15ish by then). I was also often just paying lip service to the people and interests of the culture of listening around me after this time as well. Which included cohorts at various times into Rock and then came the Post-Punk people. The Post-Punk people I had to navigate as a musician for various reasons. But the other thing I was thinking about your post was ....your lack of elitism in your listening. That's one of the things I am glad I have also, and never succumbed to the mindset of categorisation between the worthy and beauty (and integrity) of the Popular..... and the worthy and beauty and integrity of the so called 'higher path'. Because I have found the vacuous, the pretentious and the pointless to exist just as much in all camps. And often whichever 'so called' higher paths people take as creative musicians or creative listeners - are often just as ignorant and blinkered by socio-cultural upbringing and socio economic privilege as are the so-called lo-brow paths of lesser music mortals. Hey, that just reminded me of a Brotzmann album title 'Low Life' :D But yeah....stuff elitism wherever you find it!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1 May 2016 at 8:18 AM, Scott Dolan said:

The title track was great, but I personally thought Frozen took the album to all new heights. 

 

That's a classy and beautiful song for sure. It scared me at first when I clicked on the link 'cause i thought it was Diamanda Galas :) Wonder what Madonna thinks of Diamanda Galas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About Sly Stone, and if he was still active in the later Seventies with all his faculties intact, well who would know. But maybe like many others the essence of what he achieved was already 'fully formed' and may have already solidified and stayed that way 'more or less'. Who knows what Hendrix would have also made. But something essential to these discussions that hasn't been touched upon... and the big overarching thing in regard to Black Popular Song from the time immediately proceeding Prince was DISCO. So... how Sly Stone would have proceeded??? We know how James Brown proceeded. And thats the thing about the emergence of Prince and Michael (as a solo visionary). They were the first Post-Disco groundbreakers in Black Song. Michael was coming of age with The Jacksons 'End of Disco' Disco, with Blame It On The Boogie, and then Whammo....BILLIE JEAN, kinda like, well...This is where I'm at now People!!! Same with Prince in a more low-key visionary way with Controversy etc. Then there was the first post-Disco albums of the other masters of Black Popular Song, Marvin Gaye, Sexual Healing and Stevie Wonder, Master Blaster.  then there is Blood Ulmer's post-disco funk, but he called his vocal ones 'harmolodic Pop Songs. :)...ooooohhhh aaahhhh, ooh, Don't Control My Pleasure you people...just don't!!! I don't think Harmolodics moved as many units though :)

 

Edited by robertoart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Robert. It has been an interesting journey, my early life was not a common experience and It shaped my early adulthood in many ways I wished it hadn't at the time, but have learned to accept and appreciate since. I don't feel I have an elitist musical stance, and I really hate such an attitude (for some time I had a tag line on my bulletin board profiles "Hater of jazz snobs")--I have seen the effect that has on non-jazz and jazz listeners.

Gosh, the news this morning is that Prince was nearly into the hands of professionals who could have helped him with his pain pill addiction. So close . . . so far away. What a sad fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, robertoart said:

That's a classy and beautiful song for sure. It scared me at first when I clicked on the link 'cause i thought it was Diamanda Galas :) Wonder what Madonna thinks of Diamanda Galas?

I'd be willing to bet she thinks far more highly of her than Madonna fans do. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not as disparate as some might think, Prince articulate on Warner Brothers situ, one wishes Larry Graham had studied with Sonny before pulling Prince into ...

***

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, robertoart said:

About Sly Stone, and if he was still active in the later Seventies with all his faculties intact, well who would know...

Sly & Richie Havens (namechecked at 8:10) both at Woodstock...

***

Skim ahead to 2:00 if you don't wanna join the crowd

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.