Milestones

I have to say I like the track "What Now" with Scofield. One reviewer said it sounded like Keith Emerson meeting Jimi Hendrix, and sure enough that sounds pretty accurate.

Just wondering what people think of this group. They've been around quite awhile now, and have a decent amount of fame for a jazz group (or jam band). Truth to tell, I have not listened to much besides the two collaborations with John Scofield. There are some good tracks, and to my mind one genuine classic: "Hottentot." But on the whole it's not stuff that truly impresses me. The group seems to keep slipping into a very similar groove on one track after another.

Olivier did win for his performance in "Hamlet," and he did direct the film. I have no doubt their acceptances were a wee bit different!

Seems like I read Olivier was the only one attaining this clearly unusual feat (they were wrong). Benigni may well be the all-time biggest surprise for Best Actor oscar. Who would put Olivier and Beningni in the same category???

I guess it depends on how one interprets this. Benigni did win the Oscar for Best Actor, and he did direct the film (but did not win the Oscar for Director). But wouldn't we still say he directed himself to the Academy Award?

I heard again that Laurence Olivier is the only actor to ever direct himself to an Oscar-winning performance. That's a little surprising. There is no shortage of big name and talented actors who have directed a great deal--perhaps the first that comes to mind is Clint Eastwood. It took a long time for Clint to get much respect as an actor, but there was "Unforgiven" and the more impressive "Million Dollar Baby." I believe Warren Beatty did it twice--acting nominations in films he directed. Woody Allen in "Annie Hall." Was Ben Affleck nominated for "Argo"? There must be several more. Oh, never mind on Affleck: no nom for acting or directing. The latter is a bit strange given that the film took home Best Picture.

Spirits of Our Ancestors by Randy Weston. It's Jamil Nasser and Alex Blake. Would bass and cello count? I'm thinking of Waldron's The Quest and Dolphy's Out There.

I saw Haynes a few years ago and was simply blown away. He may be our best living drummer--as good, or better, than Dejohnette. In my earlier jazz days I deeply dug Max, Tony Wiiliams, Elvin, Art Blakey, and Jack DeJohnette. I came on a little slowly with Roy. Not sure why. All that great work with Chick, Sonny, Getz, Dolphy, Metheny, and countless more. Let's not forget he's done a lot of great work under his own leadership.

By and large I will avoid talk of race, religion, and politics when it comes to jazz. It is, first of all, a personal preference; but, second, I (at least) don't see much relevance here. To be sure, jazz has offered commentary on racial politics. How could that not be when you consider how significant the civil rights issue was in the last century? Ellington, Mingus, and Roach had things to say; and what's more remarkable is that a lot of it remains listenable. Artists today trying to preach a political message are (IMO) unlistenable. Jazz is mostly instrumental music--at least in terms of what I like to hear. But however artists choose to state it (music alone or music with lyrics), in general nothing dates music faster than political statements.

Alas, Wynton was never as interesting as Philip K. Dick.

Or maybe it is the burden of creativity. Every genre or art form seems to essentially reach its limit, then the artists go back and re-explore. At best, the new stuff can offer micro-creativity. At this stage, if you are going to be really innovative in jazz, it will likely turn into something that wouldn't be jazz anymore. Or so it seems to me. Then again, jazz did accept (with reluctance by many) the fusion of Miles, McLaughlin, Coryell, Weather Report, etc. But has then there been a true shift/turning point in jazz since? Some would say Wynton and the Young Lions, but you have to say that what they did was simply re-explore the past.

All music has roots and peak periods and great compositions. Doesn't this explain the continued relevance of Bach, Mozart, Chuck Berry, The Beatles, Ellington, Monk, etc etc etc?

Yes, they definitely they wanted to do things differently--that's why they were pioneers. And yet I have to say I've been surprised by how well Coryell, for instance, can play pieces like "Sophisticated Lady," "Body and Soul," and "Theme for Ernie."

We've largely gotten away from McLaughlin on this thread. I can only say he was the second jazz guy I ever got into (after Miles), and he blew me away then--and still does now. A player who is innovative and incredibly eclectic. A musician who has astonished me, a musician who has moved me. Is every project fabulous? Of course not. Personally I was not much into Heart of Things. But I sure do like his stuff with 4th Dimension--his best ever echo of Mahavishnu.

Of those records, I know Secret Story the best. Not that many vocals, and certainly not very similar to the stuff on Stern's Voices.

Funny thing is that while I like most everything by Pat Metheney, some I like more than others--and I was not big on the vocal stuff. I'm not even sure which albums prominently feature this.

I have to say, "Voices" just seems as good as it gets when it comes to guitar and wordless vocals.

Honestly, I'm surprised to find a couple of fans of his trumpet playing. I can deal with it, to be sure, but the signature sound is the alto. The man has created some great music. When I first read about him (and had not yet heard him), I thought he would be rather inaccessible. But that is not that case at all. He is very engaging on just about everything, even on Free Jazz (the record).

I received an email suggesting that the sign no longer requires membership, at least if you've been a previous member.

Wow, this thing is going to hit 200 posts yet, and of course at this point it is barely touching on Kenny Burrell. Ah, there's always that "art" and "commerce" debate, but let's not forget that many fine musicians spent a lot of hours as session men (from Clark Terry to Michael Brecker; KB for that matter), and they have not suffered for it. You do some things (usually low visibility) to get some bucks to pay some bills, yet you still have the time and energy for truly creative work. The remarks about the ghetto strike me as very odd. Did Miles Davis grow up in the ghetto? Plus there's the fact that jazz has nearly always had a predominantly white audience. Do we currently have less African-Americans playing jazz? It sure seems that way, but maybe it's something similar to fewer African-American's playing baseball. And anyway can we say that musicians such as these don't offer creativity and pleasure: Joe Lovano, Bill Frisell, Mike Brecker, Charlie Haden, Chick Corea, Joe Zawinul, Stan Getz, Pat Metheny (ad infinitum).

Phases, you know. I used to a pretty big movie buff, but now I hardly watch them, either at the theater or at home. I used to think of nothing of reading a 600-page novel. Now I prefer to stick to 200 or 250 pages; or better yet, novellas and short stories.

Oh, I very much enjoy JSngry's posts. But with over 43,000 over them, I won't claim that I will read them all.

OK, so let me speak now as someone who has written 30+ short stories and three novels--not that you will find them at your local Barnes & Noble. I am also a composition teacher (at a community college), so what I do is teach the technique of sentences, paragraphs, entire essays. No, I don't know (firsthand) the techniques of jazz or music in general, but they are there...beyond question. Without it, you are not a musician. Without a serious amount of it, you are strictly an amateur. Even my ears can hear the unorthodox techniques of musicians like Monk, and I can hear the considerable technique of Wes Montgomery(also recognizing how easy he makes it sound).

You turn some interesting metaphors, JSngy.

Much is made of technique in jazz, and maybe that's why it's not a very popular music...all told. I do admire technique sometimes (it's really a "sense" thing for my non-musician ears), but certainly it's not ALL about technique. And I'm sure technique comes into play with ballads; just because the tempo is slower, that doesn't mean it's easier to play. Anyway, my point is that we should be more concerned about what a player CHOOSES to play, rather than what he/she CAN play. Or not. If your vision of music is all about technique, then that has to be the central focus.