Hot Ptah

For me, Charles Lloyd's recordings from the past 20 years push him into the worthy side.

It is very interesting to me that my reaction to Track 7 is so different from what is stated here by other members whose opinions I respect. I just do not hear the real soul, real gospel feeling in Track 7, but apparently others find it totally convincing. I find it fascinating that when we do not know who is playing, we candidly state our true reactions, which do not adhere to an orthodox view of an artist. I guess that is one of the goals of a Blindfold Test generally.

It seems like a very good and worthy group.

That was the first film I thought of. He is tremendous in that role.

The AllAboutJazz Forums are up and running again this morning. The leader of the forum posted an explanation: "The forum was the victim of a denial of service attack. I'm hoping we'll remain up, and until we improve our registration security (aka CAPTCHA), we will not accept new registrations. Also, we are one year into a four year contract with JustHost, so we plan to be around for at least another three years. We would not close the forum without advanced notice.

Yeah, my party bus on Saturday night was full of them.

Affare has really tasty food, not all of it heavily German. It has an award winning chef from Europe. The desserts are amazing. There is a great selection of German beers, and the waitresses know how to explain each beer and how it compares to other beers. All in all, it is my favorite Kansas City restaurant right now.

Those are all good. Affare is a newer restaurant which is really worth going to--if I was going to recommend one from my list, it would be that one.

Actually the airport is in Missouri, and the residential and commercial areas have grown out to meet it. There is a thriving part of Kansas City, Missouri, near the airport. My brother lives there. There is no doubt that the Kansas City metro area is quite spread out, and sprawls across two states. I find that there are more excellent restaurants downtown now than in Westport or the Plaza. Excellent restaurants downtown (which to me includes the River Market and Crossroads areas, thus 1st Street to 22nd Street) include Affare, Extra Virgin, Michael Smith, Jack Stack Barbecue, Grunaer, Lidia's, Le Fou Frog, Aixois, Makers Mark, 801 Chop House, Cigar Box, Anthony's, Garozzo's, BRGR, Milwaukee Delicatessan, Webster House, Blue Nile, Drum Room,, Rieger Hotel Grill, Farmhouse, Drunken Fish. I am no doubt missing some. Also, the home base of Christopher Elbow's chocolates is downtown, and just incredible. I don't really think of Bristol as one of the top downtown restaurants. It's O.K., but not as good as many of the restaurants on my list, in my humble opinion.

Actually I think that there are many great food offerings downtown. It doesn't seem like BeBop will have much time to explore our music stores, jazz clubs or restaurants, though.

BeBop. How long are you in town? Do you have any free time while you are here? A tour of vinyl places and jazz clubs could be scheduled!

We don't know what happened yet with the AAJ Forum. I find it difficult to believe that it is a financial problem, since they have had ads running within the posts of members since the temporary shut down of last year. They must be paid a good amount of money with all of those ads.

Tom, Please check your Private Messages--I sent you one.

I said that I did not agree with the people who said this. What they meant, is that to them, a musical work of art should be thoroughly composed, and contain a compelling, somewhat complicated melody, and interesting lyrics. To them, someone improvising off of chord changes, or a mode, is not really trying very hard to complete a total piece of music, and is taking a lazy way out, exhibiting some instrumental skill which is not particularly interesting or meritorious. To them, an improvised instrumental work is akin to a movie script which has not been filmed yet--there are so many aspects to the completed film which still need to be worked on. As I said in my original post, I do not agree with this. I bring it up only to comment that the view of some jazz lovers, that a jazz instrumental improvisation is the absolute pinnacle of all music, is not a universally shared view. Well, of course not. Is there such a thing as a universally shared view? At the end of the day I don't expect anyone to agree with me on any subject. If they do, hey, bonus! Kinda reminds me of a time I played Coltrane's First Meditation for a buddy of mine. When it was over he asked, "can we listen to some real music now?" BTW, are the folks you've been referencing Stanley and Wynton? No, they have nothing to do with Stanley and Wynton, nor have they ever heard of Stanley and Wynton, I would imagine.

I said that I did not agree with the people who said this. What they meant, is that to them, a musical work of art should be thoroughly composed, and contain a compelling, somewhat complicated melody, and interesting lyrics. To them, someone improvising off of chord changes, or a mode, is not really trying very hard to complete a total piece of music, and is taking a lazy way out, exhibiting some instrumental skill which is not particularly interesting or meritorious. To them, an improvised instrumental work is akin to a movie script which has not been filmed yet--there are so many aspects to the completed film which still need to be worked on. As I said in my original post, I do not agree with this. I bring it up only to comment that the view of some jazz lovers, that a jazz instrumental improvisation is the absolute pinnacle of all music, is not a universally shared view.

Well, it's easy to do because it's shit. I personally think you can get used to listening to just about anything. And that's not a bad thing, mind you. Any time you find pleasure in listening that's a very good thing. But, a guy I work with listens to it, and it's just awful, IMO. I think the worst part being the phony "cowboy" voice and accent nearly all the male artists use. And I'm not down on all Country music, just the modern garbage oozing out of Nashville. I listened to it a bit back in the 90's when the big crossover thing was starting to happen, and still have CD's from several artists from back then. But it has gone horribly awry since then. Give me old school Country, Alt. Country, Outlaw, Lubbock, whathaveyou. Love that stuff quite a bit. Uncle Tupelo, early Wilco, Steve Earle, Joe Ely, Son Volt... We have a different reaction to hearing the same radio songs, it appears. Nothing unusual about that. However, I do not know why we have to put a value judgment on music we just plain don't like. My dad would call Creedence Clearwater Revival's best songs "that garbage" when they came on the radio in the 1969-70 time period. I liked them. He didn't. I always wondered why he couldn't say, "I don't like this" instead of "that garbage." I like the outlaw country too, at least some of it.

I remember when this album came out--it was in the middle of a string of strong Columbia albums by Dexter. He was also touring a lot then and I had several opportunities to see him live. This album was more arranged than the other Columbia albums, but just as exciting to me as the others. I also met Dexter at an album release event at Schoolkids Records in Ann Arbor, in the 1979-80 period. It must have been for a Columbia album which came after this one. It was a bit surprising to see Dexter Gordon (THE Dexter Gordon) standing there in the narrow aisles of the music store which I had been frequenting, and which had become a routine place for me to be. He was very friendly and approachable. While I was there, standing next to Dexter, a young man in dreadlocks literally ran up to him and shouted, "Dexter, Dexter, I just love jazz so much, but I can only make a living playing rock and pop! I want to play jazz all the time! I love jazz so much! Tell me Dexter, what should I do! what should I do!" After a long pause, in which the young man stared with tremendous anticipation and intensity on his face, Dexter looked at him and in his deep voice, said, "keep on swingin'!". That was all. The young man walked backward, in a daze.

Very interesting post. I believe that there are a few "great people" who actually make a difference. If there had not been a Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Mozart, James Joyce, Albert Einstein--it is not clear to me that someone else would have come along and done roughly the same thing. What I find irritating is when jazz writers, or historians generally, go much further, and simplify everything into separate movements, eras, or periods of great man influence, when the reality was far more complex and defies such simple characterization.

I have had to listen a lot to an FM radio station that plays today's pop country in recent months, just because the people I have had to associate with always have it on. There is much of real merit in the pop country hits of today. They are not garbage, not all formulaic--there are some really good songs being written and performed in the country genre now. I have been pleasantly surprised. Actually I think that today's country hits sound a whole lot like the 1970s rock that many of the members here liked when they were younger, with a slight country twist. I am not sure why, but it seems easy for jazz listeners to especially ridicule country music, even more so than other forms of pop music.

I think that many of us began by listening to pop music on the radio, or the pop music popular in our school, and at some point, became interested in jazz. For me, there was quite a transition, akin to learning a new language. Learning this new language and the cultural and historic content surrounding it--that was a bit of hard work. So I think it is natural to congratulate oneself on having mastered this new area of study. So often I find that those who have mastered this new area of study, jazz, then go on to consider themselves, and their musical tastes, superior to that of pop music listeners. Our superiority complex can be increased by reading some jazz critics, who have written about jazz in a particular historical style of writing, in which individual figures, and changes in the music, are presented heroically, as if we are involved in the great sweep of highly significant historic events. That is an artificial construct by the writers, not reality. But I don't think it all needs to be that way. If I were to study and become very familiar with the native music of Papua New Guinea this year, that would be hard work too. But then what if I came onto this site and proclaimed that I was far superior to all of you, who are listening to that superficial jazz stuff, instead of my deeper, richer, more artistically valid music of Papua New Guinea? Everyone would most likely see me as an insufferable, obnoxious snob. Some more thoughtful, calm members might say something like, "it's different music, not better." So why do we feel that the fact that we listen to an album of standards, played by a tenor sax, acoustic piano, acoustic bass and drums, in a not particularly compelling way, makes us superior to someone listening to the Zac Brown Band, or the Black Keys, or Trombone Shorty, or Aretha Franklin, or Paul McCartney, or any other pop music you might name. Is it possible that it is different, but not better? So maybe we should get off of our pedestals, and maybe that would help make jazz more popular to the uninitiated younger listener.

QUOTE OF THE YEAR! I know some very intelligent people who know theater, literature and visual arts at a sophisticated level far above mine, who totally disagree with this. I have had discussions with them about this subject. They believe that the artistry required to produce compelling vocal pop hits far exceeds the ability to improvise instrumentally, at any level of improvisational skill. To them, improvised instrumental music is "half-music", an easy out in which the musical artist does not try particularly hard, and stops before completing their musical work of art. To them, a Spears hit, or a Beatles hit, or a Motown hit from 1965, or a Frank Sinatra hit from 1955, is a far greater artistic achievement than any jazz instrumental ever. They speak articulately and intelligently about this. I don't agree with them, but it is another point of view, which jazz lovers typically do not even consider.

This is a very intriguing Blindfold Test. I keep thinking that I should know more of the artists than I do. 1. I find this to be a pleasant, but not especially memorable, piano and sax duet. It makes me think about how contemporary jazz recordings often simply do not feature musicians with very distinctive voices, compared to jazz of the past. 2. This is a nice mainstream bop recording. It reminds me of a time when I was in a large music store in the mid-1990s. An African-American boy, about ten years old, pointed to a Wynton Marsalis album and asked his mother what it sounded like. She said, "it's like a Lee Morgan album, only not as good." That is what I get from this track. However, on repeated listenings, the saxophone soloist and the trumpet soloist are undeniably quite good. 3. This could be Kurt Rosenwinkel. It is the kind of abstract head that I am sometimes in the mood for, and sometimes think that contemporary jazz musicians use this sort of slightly unusual theme as a too easy default position. It is very skillfully played. 4. I like the trombone player, he plays with some real feeling, some guts. I have no idea who it is, but I like this one. 5. I love this song. I keep thinking I have this recording, or have heard it and should know who it is. I love the composition and arrangement. Great percussion! Who is that trumpet soloist? Who plays with a harmon mute so skillfully, but also with some lightness to his approach, some good humor? Someone like Eddie Henderson would be more ponderous. Clark Terry would play with this good humor, but it does not sound like him. Who IS that? 6. I love this one too. I have no idea who it is, but I find the composition, the arrangement, and the solos, all very appealing and memorable. 7. I want to like this more than I do. I think that the players are just not quite steeped enough in the gospel tradition--as if they are rather unsoulful musicians trying to delve into gospel. 8. I love this one. It is very appealing, very catchy, but with a lot of substance. It reminds me of something that Phillip Johnston would do, either on his own or with the Microscopic Sextet. It is not quite weird enough for him though, not quite off-kilter enough. I really like the arrangement a lot. It is imaginative and appealing. 9. This reminds me of a Slide Hampton arrangement, such as the work he did on McCoy Tyner's '13th House' or Dexter Gordon's 'Sophisticated Giant.' The trumpet solo is really good. I love the way that the big band is used here. I feel like I should know what this is. 10. This is great music. What a hot organ dominated track! Whatever it is, I want to buy it! This is music with soul and passion. 11. Oh, WHO IS THIS? I should know. I love this sort of Ornette-ish stuff. At first I wondered if it was Old and New Dreams--but they did not have two saxophonists. The drummer gets into a DeJohnette-like level of complexity. This is really excellent. It is appealing and deep and exciting, all at once. I love this one. So thanks so much for a really interesting, often very exciting and appealing Blindfold Test! I can't wait to read the answers!

Actually my post of "Would it kill these present day musicians to write something like 'Song For My Father' or 'Watermelon Man'" was meant a bit tongue-in-cheek, which does not come over well in pixels, because those two songs are a once in a lifetime situation for even Horace Silver and Herbie Hancock. But I do think that it is not a priority at all for most contemporary jazz musicians to try to come up with a memorable, appealing composition that people will love and remember. I think there would be nothing wrong with musicians of today at least trying to do that.

The Magnificent Goldberg actually raises a point which I find interesting. In rock and country, there is no orthodoxy of what the recorded performance needs to sound like, as there is in jazz. Anything goes There is no need to comply with what Chuck Berry/Fats Domino/Jerry Lee Lewis did in the 1950s, or what the Carter Family/Bob Wills/Hank Williams recorded. So something quite watered down or commercialized, or derivative, or divorced from all earlier tradition, or cheesy, or corny, can be a perfectly acceptable rock or country recording--and very, very popular. Hugely popular. Nearly all rock or country artists of merit have released their share of these watered down recordings. Virtually no one seems to mind, or comment. So the Rolling Stones can have a massive disco hit with "Miss You", and it just becomes part of their greatest hits. Even the Grateful Dead recorded the disco-influenced "Shakedown Street".There might be an occasional mild critical comment like "the newest Eric Clapton album has some nods to contemporary pop, which his older blues fans might not care for as much"--but there is not the scathing condemnation that you get in jazz. There seems to be an acceptable tradition within these other musical forms of adapting to what the mass audience wants, and trying to convey some of your musical personality, and to inject some musical quality, into the frankly commercialized efforts. Not so in jazz. So why is it surprising that these other genres are popular and have younger audiences? A whole lot of vintage (and popular)Tommy Dorsey recordings weren't "watered down" anything. As for Glenn Miller, if there was a "watered down" aspect to his band, that wasn't the main reason it was widely popular. There were lots of semi-polite but non-"sweet" bands around at that time; the Miller band was hugely popular because of its distinctive sound, the quality of its execution, and its large number of catchy originals. A latter-day partial comparison might be to the Brubeck-Desmond recording of "Take Five." It wasn't/isn't popular because it's "watered down," it was and is popular because it's catchy/infectious and, for those who care/notice, has a very nice Desmond solo. Well, I reckon those bands were watered down in comparison to Cab Calloway. But OK, where do we see the present day jazz bands with a distinctive sound, quality execution and a large number of catchy originals? Maybe that's nearer to Kenny G than to Vijay Iyer (though I've heard neither). MG I don't see present day jazz bands with a large number of catchy originals. Some of the present day jazz bands have a distinctive sound and quality execution, but not catchy originals. Would it kill these present day musicians to write something like "Song For My Father" or "Watermelon Man"?

Because they expect that the old folks will be dumb and lame all the time, so it does not surprise them?