Jacknife

[mrjazzman]

I'm 68, been listening to jazz since I was 15.  I recently saw Jacknife at the Sound Room in Oakland, CA.  Huge disappointment, I came very close to leaving at intermission.  With Jackie, they bit off way more than they are capable of chewing.  I suggest they listen to Cory Weeds' interpretation of Jackie's music and go back to the practice room.  They played a couple of cuts from Bluesnik but didn't play the title track, probably to difficult for this group. I do appreciate the effort though.

[JSngry]

These guys?

https://www.jacknifejazz.com/new-page-1/

Not gonna ask "why?", I get that, just...I don't like the answer, at least not when phrased like this.

[Rooster_Ties]

Same group is this album??

http://primaryrecords.org/releases/jacknife-the-music-of-jackie-mclean/

https://www.amazon.com/Lugerner-Kirkpatrick-Richard-Mitchell-Jacknife/dp/B01F7HLH7U

I have this CD, and frickin' love it!  Was recorded all in one room, with just a couple mics too (iirc), so the sound of this CD is remarkably true to the 1960's recordings it's trying to emulate, IMHO.

 

But I'm also seeing that the line-up for live performances isn't the same as the CD.  For instance half(?) this group is different than what's on the CD.

So no idea what you heard in SF, but the original CD is really fantastic -- FWIW.

 

[mrjazzman]

Spot on, he said a couple of the originals were being replaced by some of his "other friends",  "I have a lot of great friends"  the pianist was very good. Have not heard them on CD. It's all about opinions and personal preferences,  I hear that Cory Weeds is closer to Jackie than Steven Lugerner Period.

Edited March 6, 2018 by mrjazzman

[Rooster_Ties]

The original (tribute) CD by this group, I want to reinterate, is a total motherfucker. As highly recommended as any tribute I've heard in years.

[Guy Berger]

1 hour ago, mrjazzman said:

I'm 68, been listening to jazz since I was 15.  I recently saw Jacknife at the Sound Room in Oakland, CA.  Huge disappointment, I came very close to leaving at intermission.  With Jackie, they bit off way more than they are capable of chewing.  I suggest they listen to Cory Weeds' interpretation of Jackie's music and go back to the practice room.  They played a couple of cuts from Bluesnik but didn't play the title track, probably to difficult for this group. I do appreciate the effort though.

Can you be a little more specific?

I haven't listened to either this group or to Cory Weeds's, but from looking at their respective recordings Weeds focuses on the early, somewhat more mainstream Blue Note material and Lugerner explores the later, more experimental Blue Note work.  I recall from past threads that you aren't particularly fond of post-1960 innovations in jazz, which is totally cool, but is the essence of your gripe too much new gospel and not enough of the old?

[Chuck Nessa]

Question for all. If you like something is it because it is new and challenges you or is it your comfort zone?

[Larry Kart]

52 minutes ago, Chuck Nessa said:

Question for all. If you like something is it because it is new and challenges you or is it your comfort zone?

Yes to both, with a qualification. New and challenging for sure, especially challenging in language terms because it's so stimulating (for me) to try to grasp the principles of a new way of speaking. Comfort zone, too, but the "speech" of what's being spoken there has to be genuine. To pick two examples at random -- I wouldn't have asked Johnny Hodges or Benny Carter to play something that was utterly new to me (or to them), but I'd  have wanted/expected them to be themselves in "the present." Anyone who can't be themselves in "the present" -- I don't care what style they play, what era they come from or are trying to inhabit, I'm elsewhere. If what I mean here is unclear, ask me a question and I'll try to explain further.

BTW, now that I think of it, an example from up thread. When I first heard Nick Mazzarella about twelve years ago, he was more drenched in Ornette than one would have thought possible. But I felt sure right off that he wasn't emulating Ornette per se but working toward what would become his own music in a way he needed to work, and such has proved to be the case.


Three from (or including) another young altoist I like, Jarrett Gilgore:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABeyi8I69oo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y33XnU3FabQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj85z8XNcXs

[mjzee]

Something can be "new" and still be contentless/derivative/grating/meandering.  Music needs to be judged on its own terms.  Does the avant garde claim exemption from opinions, or must all opinions of the avant garde be positive?

(This is not meant as a comment about Jacknife, whom I haven't heard.  But then, I didn't like this period of Jackie's music either.  It's some 50 years on since his Moncur period - at what point does it cease to be new?)

 

Edited March 7, 2018 by mjzee
To correct an overeager auto-correct.

[JSngry]

9 minutes ago, mjzee said:

Something can be "new" and still be contentless/derivative/grating/meandering.  Music needs to be judged on its own terms.  Does the avant garde claim exemption from opinions, or must all opinions of the avant grade be positive?

Allow me to say this about that, the very notion of "new" - if I live long enough to get into so-called "Early Music", I know from the little toe-dips I've had, that that shit is going to be new as fuck to me, and I'm going to likely love it until it becomes common in my overall thought process, at which case I will still love it, but in a different way.

New is not about the calendar, it's about what you do with the yet-unused parts of your consciousness, and that can come from anywhere in time. Linear time is for business, chumps, and other people loved by the establishment.

[Larry Kart]

10 minutes ago, mjzee said:

Something can be "new" and still be contentless/derivative/grating/meandering.  Music needs to be judged on its own terms.  Does the avant garde claim exemption from opinions, or must all opinions of the avant grade be positive?

(This is not meant as a comment about Jacknife, whom I haven't heard.  But then, I didn't like this period of Jackie's music either.  It's some 50 years on since his Moncur period - at what point does it cease to be new?)

 

Sorting out as honestly as one can the new that works from the new, or would-be new, that doesn't is part of the challenge and the fun. Is that a problem?

[mjzee]

8 minutes ago, Larry Kart said:

Sorting out as honestly as one can the new that works from the new, or would-be new, that doesn't is part of the challenge and the fun. Is that a problem?

It's not a problem at all.  It sounds like that's what the original poster (mrjazzman) was doing with the Jacknife performance he saw.  Can we be satisfied that he undertook the challenge and came to his conclusion?

[Simon Weil]

54 minutes ago, Chuck Nessa said:

Question for all. If you like something is it because it is new and challenges you or is it your comfort zone?

The stuff that gives me a sense that I've expanded my perspectives. I get very bored listening to same old. But I don't know that I'm that good at appreciating technical innovation off my own bat.

[JSngry]

2 minutes ago, Larry Kart said:

 Is that a problem?

No, see, THIS is the problem: http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/06/news/companies/mcdonalds-quarter-pounder-beef/index.html

McDonald's is putting fresh beef in the Quarter Pounder

and then:

McDonald's Signature Crafted Recipe burgers will also have fresh beef patties.

The switch does not apply to Big Macs and regular hamburgers and cheeseburgers.

So yeah, let shit get all the way fucked up, and then any little rooty-poot "change" is supposed to be a big positive deal.

No, I want to hear that McDonald's is replacing all their beef with squirrel meat. Meat, bones, eyeballs, cute fuzzy tails, the whole damn thing. Then I can feast on my hate and be open about it, instead of sublimating it into Happy Meals and all that mindfuck bullshit.

But that will never happen, because we want to kid ourselves about what the deal really is, namely that if I really do deserve a break today, then why are you rewrding me by poisoning me and my kids?

THAT is the problem, right there. People get diverted, stop paying attention, and then they have no idea what "time" really is/means, and then they accept any okey-doke bullshit as true fact.

[Chuck Nessa]

Just now, Simon Weil said:

The stuff that gives me a sense that I've expanded my perspectives. I get very bored listening to same old. But I don't know that I'm that good at appreciating technical innovation off my own bat.

I understand the latter problem but enjoy challenges. FWIW, Jelly Roll Morton still falls in to that category.

[Larry Kart]

23 minutes ago, JSngry said:

Allow me to say this about that, the very notion of "new" - if I live long enough to get into so-called "Early Music", I know from the little toe-dips I've had, that that shit is going to be new as fuck to me, and I'm going to likely love it until it becomes common in my overall thought process, at which case I will still love it, but in a different way.

New is not about the calendar, it's about what you do with the yet-unused parts of your consciousness, and that can come from anywhere in time. Linear time is for business, chumps, and other people loved by the establishment.

Yes, new is not about the calendar; it's about what might be called continuing "presentness." Jelly Roll, Josquin, Chopin, etc., when heard, never cease to exist/function in the present moment. Sorting out the continuing presentness of, say, Chopin from what may seem overly familiar in his music may not be a snap, but it sure can be done.

[Simon Weil]

3 minutes ago, Chuck Nessa said:

I understand the latter problem but enjoy challenges. FWIW, Jelly Roll Morton still falls in to that category.

I do enjoy a challenge, but I can be swayed by BS when It comes to listening to music (anyway in the short-term) in a way that I'm not when it comes to reading text (I believe I have a better literary ear than a musical one).

[jlhoots]

First I've heard of Jacknife. Sounds interesting.

[mrjazzman]

10 hours ago, Guy Berger said:

Can you be a little more specific?

I haven't listened to either this group or to Cory Weeds's, but from looking at their respective recordings Weeds focuses on the early, somewhat more mainstream Blue Note material and Lugerner explores the later, more experimental Blue Note work.  I recall from past threads that you aren't particularly fond of post-1960 innovations in jazz, which is totally cool, but is the essence of your gripe too much new gospel and not enough of the old?

10 hours ago, Guy Berger said:

Can you be a little more specific?

I haven't listened to either this group or to Cory Weeds's, but from looking at their respective recordings Weeds focuses on the early, somewhat more mainstream Blue Note material and Lugerner explores the later, more experimental Blue Note work.  I recall from past threads that you aren't particularly fond of post-1960 innovations in jazz, which is totally cool, but is the essence of your gripe too much new gospel and not enough of the old?

Not a gripe. I went to see a band I couldn't hear.  If you and others can hear them, fine.   For my ears, I hear exactly what Cory Weeds is doing when he plays Jackie's music. And he's not just about Jackie. I would expect a little more from this group, they're taking on the Master's name. 

10 hours ago, Guy Berger said:

Can you be a little more specific?

I haven't listened to either this group or to Cory Weeds's, but from looking at their respective recordings Weeds focuses on the early, somewhat more mainstream Blue Note material and Lugerner explores the later, more experimental Blue Note work.  I recall from past threads that you aren't particularly fond of post-1960 innovations in jazz, which is totally cool, but is the essence of your gripe too much new gospel and not enough of the old?

10 hours ago, Chuck Nessa said:

Question for all. If you like something is it because it is new and challenges you or is it your comfort zone?

10 hours ago, Guy Berger said:

Can you be a little more specific?

I haven't listened to either this group or to Cory Weeds's, but from looking at their respective recordings Weeds focuses on the early, somewhat more mainstream Blue Note material and Lugerner explores the later, more experimental Blue Note work.  I recall from past threads that you aren't particularly fond of post-1960 innovations in jazz, which is totally cool, but is the essence of your gripe too much new gospel and not enough of the old?

12 hours ago, JSngry said:

These guys?

https://www.jacknifejazz.com/new-page-1/

Not gonna ask "why?", I get that, just...I don't like the answer, at least not when phrased like this.

s

[Dan Gould]

Put me down for the zone of comfort.  I know what I like and why I like it. Life's too short and money is too tight when there is still new or new-to-me recordings that I can reasonably anticipate enjoying.

[Guy Berger]

13 hours ago, mjzee said:

It's not a problem at all.  It sounds like that's what the original poster (mrjazzman) was doing with the Jacknife performance he saw.  Can we be satisfied that he undertook the challenge and came to his conclusion?

To me as a prospective listener "I don't like this style, ergo didn't enjoy this music" and "I am fine with this style but didn't think the group was good" have different implications.

[riddlemay]

14 hours ago, Chuck Nessa said:

Question for all. If you like something is it because it is new and challenges you or is it your comfort zone?

Answering honestly (and not as I wish I could answer), I'm 100% comfort zone. The jazz I choose to put on is the music that excited me when I first discovered it as a pre-teen and teen in the sixties: Monk, Thad Jones-Mel Lewis, Silver, Basie, Miles, Golson, and on and on. (The on-and-on part is what keeps it from getting old; the list includes dozens more.) And then, of course, all the great singers, with Sinatra as my home base.

The singer-songwriters of my twenties (in the seventies) are my other touchstone. Along with the Broadway cast albums I discovered as a child and then through all the decades of Sondheim.

I'd admire myself more if I were more open to new music, but it is what it is.

[mjzee]

I guess what bothers me is the assumption that "new" is, every time and in all cases, "good."  New can be bad.  We have to listen to the music and make our own determinations.  We do that on a consumer level and on an aesthetic level.  A true listener of atonal music will discriminate between musicians he likes and those he doesn't, concepts he likes and those he doesn't.  If he likes everything, he could just as easily get his listening pleasure at construction sites.  I don't see what the problem is with listening to a piece of music, any piece of music, and saying "I like that" or "I don't like it."

Not every record released is a masterpiece.  Not every live performance is brilliance.  Even good performers have their bad days.  Why can't we state this?  Because it's a buzz-killer?  C'est la vie.

[Larry Kart]

mjzee: 'I guess what bothers me is the assumption that "new" is, every time and in all cases, "good."'

Who, especially around here, is making that assumption? 

At times during this thread, I've thought of Frank O'Hara's old wisecrack: "A lot of people would like to see art dead and sure, but you don't see them up at the Cloisters reading Latin."

 

[Peter Friedman]

I am with the "comfort zone" group. New to me is when I find a new composer of string quartets from the "classical or romantic" periods of classical music.  I can then listen to these  quartets  that are new to me, but fit within a general framework that I enjoy.

It is very much the same within the jazz realm. For example, a  saxophone player I have not heard before whose playing I like, yet plays within the stylistic areas with which I am comfortable. That for me, is both new and comfortable.

As Dan indicated in a previous post. There is only so much time and so much money available. I want the music I listen to to give me pleasure. I am not really interested at this point in my life to explore music that goes well beyond my comfort zone.

Been there and tried that in my younger days. Spent a lot of time listening to music - both jazz and classical with the goal of opening myself to music I was supposed to like.I discovered that for me, most it what I was listening to in this exploration period was either unpleasant, or boring, or both.