Jim R

Mary Osborne Michael Osborne The Charles Ford Band

I must have been listening to HCA around '60/'61. Always liked Danny Kaye, even though some of this work feels a bit dated now. Re Trane (we're back to him again), yes, and I wish somebody had picked up on "Anywhere I Wander". Maybe I missed it. Or maybe it's forthcoming? (I could almost see Bill Charlap choosing it). Wow, we've distanced ourselves just a bit from El Chicano here...

Buddy Greco Pal Joey Chumlee

My older brothers were into Tubby The Tuba. I was more attracted to the Hans Christian Andersen (10") LP we had. Still have it, in fact. Always liked "Inchworm" and "Anywhere I Wander" (normally I don't respond all that well to arrangements like this with a background vocal choir, but I find this one to be hauntingly beautiful).

[/quote

Jiminy Glick Ed Grimley Jackie Rogers, Jr.

No argument here with the phenomenon of regional accents (another connection between music and spoken language). My point about musical influence going beyond (WAY beyond) that sort of (more) direct regional influence is at the core of the "debate" here. Why wouldn't a musician like Carlos Santana be easily (unconsciously, naturally) influenced by an artist like Coltrane without any need for similar cultural upbringing/environment, regional proximity, or formal study? I'm also still perplexed by the idea that musical influence must occur differently from a source like Willis Jackson vs a "genius" like Coltrane. It certainly could, depending on the who the person/player is who is being influenced, and how much of the source's style/sound is being absorbed and utilized, but in general I think this is a misguided notion.

Are you sure about that? Could it be that it would be easier for me to find his work than it was for you? Maybe MUCH easier? Ever shopped at an Amoeba Records? Have you ever listened to (for example) KKUP? It's becoming a smaller and smaller world, MG. 30 years ago, it would have been a huge advantage to live in NYC or Chicago or SF and surrounding areas, and I'm sure it still is to some degree, but that advantage is gradually dissipating, I think. But we're talking about music that's over fifty years old I'm talking about having access to obscure music. 30 years ago (and longer) it would have been a bigger advantage to live near a major metropolitan area. Do you see? It's got nothing to do with how old the music is. ? There is no "Coltrane environment", obviously. He was one human being. He had HIS environment, and I suppose someone could refer to that as the "Coltrane environment", but that would be about as silly as saying that in order to be musically influenced by Willis Jackson, you would have to have been influenced by Willis Jackson's life. Oh wait... you actually said that... "So an artist being influenced by Gator Tail isn't anything to do with his music, it's to do with the artist's life. On the other hand, being influenced by Coltrane isn't in anyone's general life background - simply because he's a genius and you have to study it to be in a position to accept the influence." Not true. The more that one would need to "study" Coltrane, the less natural and unconscious the influence would be, but that doesn't mean that many players haven't absorbed a heavy influence from Trane without looking at transcriptions (I already mentioned that yesterday). Do you think that the enormous influence of a genius like Bird only resulted from serious "study" by everyone he influenced? Have you ever been a musician, MG? Are you aware that many jazz musicians (and quite a few greats) didn't and don't even read music? "No such thing as a free jazz environment..." hmm... I think it could be argued that there is, but we'd all have to agree about the meaning of "environment". At any rate, I don't think it's all as simple and neatly organized as you seem to imagine in terms of musicians being influenced by other musicians based on each player's upbringing and physical "environment". That's an increasingly archaic concept, I would say. Artists from completely different backgrounds commonly come together and work together and share some of the same influences. I'd still say you're wrong to use the phrase "conscious decision" and generalize that way with regard to musical influence.

Don't know. Could it have anything to do with the ottoman-dodging change, or the change to the hipper theme music? I prefer "moo-er" (or "moor"). Seems like it was intended that way (I mean, there are two O's), and requires the speaker to make more of an effort and show that they care. I say burn a few extra calories and put the "oo" in there (or "Ooh", like you say when you see a nice spaghetti dress). Fast-forwarding to the present, I've noticed that some announcers/analysts are pronouncing the last name of the Giants' Michael Morse as "Morris". One of them is Duane Kuiper, who is the Giants' LEAD announcer!

I don't think we're quite together on this and it's probably my fault. Influence is something that slips up on us out of the culture we live in that makes us prefer brown trousers or black ones and maybe, as fashions change, green ones. No, I don't accept that definition of influence, as I tried to explain above. By the 20th Century (let alone in 2014), technologies such as record players allowed musicians to be influenced by recordings (or live concerts from visiting musicians from other places, via airplane travel or motor vehicles) from other places and cultures, via records, tapes, CD's, radio broadcasts, etc etc. Would it be preferable in many cases for a musician to be able to physically immerse themselves in the environment and culture of the artist they're attracted to? Would they be even more likely to be influenced significantly if they happened to live in that same environment? Is it cool when that happens? Of course. Is that common, or even a requirement for influence to occur? Of course it's not. Naturally, fewer people have heard Dexter Johnson, and there are fewer recordings by Johnson available around the world than those of Jug, but you needn't live in Jug's world in order to be influenced by him. If you do, and can absorb some of the same environmental conditions and experiences, then great, but musical influence doesn't depend on that. You also have to CHOOSE to be influenced buy someone from down the street, when it comes to musical influence. I grew up here in a predominantly white, middle class suburban area on the west coast. I've never been to New York, or Philadelphia, or Detroit, or Chicago, or St. Louis, or Kansas City, or Memphis, or New Orleans. None of the music from those places has ever felt "foreign" to me. Nor does Brazilian music, and I've never been there either. I suppose that's partly because I love music and try to be open to anything that moves me; much of the music I love stems from the same source(s); and because in many major metropolitan areas in the U.S. (including the SF bay area), it's not uncommon for one to have access to the wide world (the whole world) of music via radio (especially non-commercial FM stations which are run by universities or supported by public donations and operated by volunteers). So yes, I've made a choice to listen to a variety of music from places I've never been, but I don't "choose" which music is going to influence me (and I am a musician, though not professional, and I think I understand quite well the concept of "influence", not only for myself, but how it generally works for most musicians). It influences me naturally. The "choice" is unconscious. I'm not completely rejecting your concept of influence via the physical connection to a given artist or environment or culture, but as I already told you, I think that's a relatively rare form of influence. If that form of influence predominated, and musicians couldn't be strongly influenced from a physical distance, that would be rather unfortunate and sad. Black and white America are closer than they were in 1954. The overlapping of cultures and musical influences that was going on (and the expanding ethnic and stylistic integration of bands) when Santana was listening to Coltrane (even as far back as the 60's) are a manifestation of that. Are you sure about that? Could it be that it would be easier for me to find his work than it was for you? Maybe MUCH easier? Ever shopped at an Amoeba Records? Have you ever listened to (for example) KKUP? It's becoming a smaller and smaller world, MG. 30 years ago, it would have been a huge advantage to live in NYC or Chicago or SF and surrounding areas, and I'm sure it still is to some degree, but that advantage is gradually dissipating, I think. ??? Even if I understood this, I'm not sure what is has to do with the discussion...

It's not that he couldn't have been aware (via "study"?), I think that MG's view is that in order to be influenced by WJ, you would have needed to live in his world (literally) and know him personally. At least that's what I thought he said.

But... you said you've heard almost nothing of Santana, so... are you forming that from what others have said? Anyway, better not to think about it in those terms, imho, particularly with regard to bands of that period. That time produced a real melting pot of styles and influences. Carlos Santana was heavily influenced by Coltrane, btw. I hear it, and really think highly of his very recognizable and emotionally charged style of playing. As a general principle, I'm very out of sympathy with rock - didn't like it back in the day and can't be bothered to learn to like it now - got other music to learn to like So my views are pretty much informed by casually having heard bits of 'Supernatural'. And it doesn't really matter to me that Santana was heavily influenced by John Coltrane (now, if you'd said - truthfully - Willis Jackson ) because to me Trane is just another bloody genius, like Bird, Ellington, Rollins, Monk etc, whose music actually doesn't normally make a great deal of difference to me. So thinking about Santana in THOSE terms (legitimate as they might well be) isn't helpful to my grasp of that band. MG ?? The only thing that should logically be helpful to your "grasp of that band" is to listen to their music before writing it off because of some nebulous label like "rock" has been attached to it. Do you really think you can assume you're not going to like Santana's entire catalog because you didn't care for bits of one album? I just re-read all the comments here, and Jim alluded to Santana's earlier recordings being "an easier listen". I would agree, but it seems to me that MG tends to lean that way in his tastes (e.g., Willis Jackson over Trane), so...?? I didn't mention Coltrane's influence on Carlos in order to suggest that this is necessarily an important reason to listen to Santana. It's just one piece of information which might cause one to discount the idea that Santana was just another "rock" band*. I also wasn't suggesting that Carlos didn't have any other important influences (jazz or otherwise). * The term "rock" annoys me. There's no more meaningless and useless label in the entire world of music, imo. Well, I do agree that listening is the key, but gaily writing off a band - and indeed an entire genre (or multiplicity of genres) of music - which we all MUST do for plain old lack of time to explore them - is a normal reaction in all circumstances but being grabbed round the throat on initial impact. Of course, age enters into it - I have a lot less time now than I had when I was twenty So, yes, I'm more inclined now to dismiss something that doesn't appeal to me without even a slug of conscience. If you've already made up your mind (after only hearing a bit of ONE album) that Santana doesn't appeal to you, I'm not sure why we're having this discussion. "Easier listen" than Coltrane. That's all I said about WJ. Santana's earlier recordings are probably an "easier listen" than his later recordings, and thus I thought that they might appeal more to you than the later work. I'd say that the kind of influence you're referring to here is relatively rare. In music, when people talk about "influences", they're generally talking about the influence of an artist's music (live or recorded), not the kind of influence that results from actually knowing and interacting with that artist, and living in the same world or renting a room from them. So, not rare, but relatively rare. When you refer to "learning about something", you seem to be suggesting that it's merely an academic pursuit where "study" is performed in order to gain influence from another artist's recordings (for example). I think music is a lot more powerful than that. You don't have to live in someone's world to be influenced by them. The life background and emotions are contained in the music. The life is IN the music. That's the whole point, isn't it? ? Never said it was better or worse, and no, I see no difference in the process by which anyone would be influenced by these two artists. I don't think it's always about "wanting" to be influenced, MG. I don't think every player influenced by Coltrane (or any other artist) necessarily decides one day that they're going to sit down and study a book of transcriptions. I would also suggest that in some cultural scenarios, music wouldn't be so likely to be seen as "foreign". As for the Randy Johnston comment, you completely lost me there (very good guitar player, by the way). I think you might find it very interesting to read about Santana's early development. Perhaps an interview where he went into a lot of detail. I know I've read something like that online... maybe I'll see what I can find.

But... you said you've heard almost nothing of Santana, so... are you forming that from what others have said? Anyway, better not to think about it in those terms, imho, particularly with regard to bands of that period. That time produced a real melting pot of styles and influences. Carlos Santana was heavily influenced by Coltrane, btw. I hear it, and really think highly of his very recognizable and emotionally charged style of playing. As a general principle, I'm very out of sympathy with rock - didn't like it back in the day and can't be bothered to learn to like it now - got other music to learn to like So my views are pretty much informed by casually having heard bits of 'Supernatural'. And it doesn't really matter to me that Santana was heavily influenced by John Coltrane (now, if you'd said - truthfully - Willis Jackson ) because to me Trane is just another bloody genius, like Bird, Ellington, Rollins, Monk etc, whose music actually doesn't normally make a great deal of difference to me. So thinking about Santana in THOSE terms (legitimate as they might well be) isn't helpful to my grasp of that band. MG ?? The only thing that should logically be helpful to your "grasp of that band" is to listen to their music before writing it off because of some nebulous label like "rock" has been attached to it. Do you really think you can assume you're not going to like Santana's entire catalog because you didn't care for bits of one album? I just re-read all the comments here, and Jim alluded to Santana's earlier recordings being "an easier listen". I would agree, but it seems to me that MG tends to lean that way in his tastes (e.g., Willis Jackson over Trane), so...?? I didn't mention Coltrane's influence on Carlos in order to suggest that this is necessarily an important reason to listen to Santana. It's just one piece of information which might cause one to discount the idea that Santana was just another "rock" band*. I also wasn't suggesting that Carlos didn't have any other important influences (jazz or otherwise). * The term "rock" annoys me. There's no more meaningless and useless label in the entire world of music, imo.

But... you said you've heard almost nothing of Santana, so... are you forming that from what others have said? Anyway, better not to think about it in those terms, imho, particularly with regard to bands of that period. That time produced a real melting pot of styles and influences. Carlos Santana was heavily influenced by Coltrane, btw. I hear it, and really think highly of his very recognizable and emotionally charged style of playing. I think people often disparage something like "Abraxas" because it became so popular. I've heard "Black Magic Woman" hundreds of times, and I still love it. It's not the song's fault (or the band's fault) that it became so huge. I tend to prefer the earlier Santana albums, and would recommend them in addition to the later stuff already mentioned. I'm less familiar with El Chicano. I do like Malo (I dig "Suavecito", which was also played to death on the radio back in the day). I was a big fan of WAR when I was in high school. Partied like crazy to The albums Jim mentioned, as well as "WAR Live" and "Deliver The Word". I haven't found that their music has aged as well for me, but there are exceptions to that. To me, their stuff is like "mood music". It's great for a sonic backdrop when activities other than focused listening are going on.

Jack Wild Gene Wilder Mickey Baker

Diane Keaton Christopher Lloyd Robert Langdon

Hmm... I think I'll just let go of this right now. There's only about a 37% chance that I would ever go to street view in that particular alley anyway. Maybe even lower, although I do love me some google street view.

Don't need to see a tie, or even shoes, but...

Now all he needs to do is find Sam.

Marge Schott Garfield Heard Phileas Fogg

Dear God, I hope you were fully clothed.

Willie Mays Joe Montana Jerry Rice

Was in Berkeley when it happened, I remember people in the streets right afterwards, and the smoke you could see across the Bay Area. I was under a desk, asking God to cool it (actually, I was telling him).

Let me guess. All they have now is passion fruit flavored candy corn.