A Lark Ascending

Suits me. The 'dance underground' is way outside my experience. Just get them out of Joni Mitchell's hands!

Did you ever notice on "You're Gonna Lose That Girl" how flat the opening vocals are in relation to the piano underneath? Yes! This evening! I'd have thought George Martin - with his reputation - would have dealt with that. Maybe he was guilty of assuming a pop audience wouldn't notice.

There's a lot to recommend among their early 70's recordings, although as times changed, so did their music. My issue, I'm sure, but whatever the first record was that featured that plodding 4/4, hit a chord on everry beat piano style that rapidly became the Kudzu of Pop, I'd like to get a time machine and go back to the session and STOP IT BEFORE IT EVEN GOT STARTED. No, I'm with you there. I'll fund the time machine as long as you also agree to take out everyone from the electronics industry who might have been partially responsible for the eventual appearance of the drum machine.

I always liked it for the melody, harmony, and arrangement. I've never been a lyrics person, in fact I'd have to admit I've always been somewhat of an voluntarily apathetic dunce in that regard. Never cared much for poetry, either. At any rate, I would have thought that the dislike that a lot of people have for this song would also have a lot to do with the "bombardment" I referred to earlier. I mean, was there anybody who didn't record that tune back in the day? If you had the radio or the tv on for longer than 10 minutes, I'm pretty sure you would have heard it. And yet I still like it. When I hear it now, it has kind of an (appealing) haunting quality to it. In my place and time it probably sounded different. The vocal is quite Americanised...even at that early age I was irritated by this in British singers. Probably doesn't get noticed t'other side t'Atlantic (that's Yorkshire!). It always seems a very 'dense' arrangement - at that time I was veering towards the more luminous, space filled arrangements of people like Free, the Fairports and so forth. 'He Ain't Heavy' just seems like a harbinger of the overwrought arrangements of the mid-70s onwards (Bohemian Rhapsody etc) that (together with punk) shut down my pop/rock interest. I can see why it might appeal to others - in some ways it has an almost gospel feel to it.

Just finished 'Help' I'd always assumed the 'approximate' tunings were a fault of off-centre disc pressing or rushed CD mastering. But I still hear some dodgy instrumental intonation on these recordings. The falling arpeggios after the initial verse on the title track, for example. Just sounds a bit flat to me.

My guilty nostalgia records are the first 6 Moody Blues albums (the prog version of the band). I couldn't listen to them from the late-70s until a few years back - they seemed so mawkish. Yet I now have them all on my iPod and inevitably play one or two when I get down to Cornwall. That's where I bought my first records and they were my first favourite group. So regardless of merit - and I can list their faults - they still move me. Perhaps an example of where nostalgia has made the inherent merit (or lack of) quite irrelevant.

Absolutely nothing, as long as we recognise it for what it is. An airbrushed version of the past (or our past). I find myself overcome with nostalgia for the 60s/70s listening to music I never knew or hardly knew at the time.

I suspect we've all moved on, TTK, and I doubt if anyone feels an 'obligation' to listen to this music (or any other, for that matter). It's just that some of us (I expect most of us!) enjoy that glance backward every now and then. No harm in that on an individual basis. It only becomes a problem if an entire culture throws all of its attention into nostalgia. I'm not sure I agree with your earlier point that music you were too young to live through could not be experienced as nostalgia. There's an entire heritage industry based around nostalgia for things we never experienced - reconstructions of colonial forts, costume dramas etc. I suspect one of the big attractions of jazz of the past is a retreat into a world where we know the outcomes and can identify with certain musics or musicians in the full knowledge that we're going to be making pretty safe judgements. Of course we explain it to ourselves that we make that choice on artistic grounds. I think we're buying into a lifestyle choice no different than those who choose an old house (much better workmanship) or classic car (ditto) over something contemporary.

Whatever that means. I could do with a translation too.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Hall un-plugged for most of the album? It certainly sounds that way. :unsure: Possibly - certainly seems very quiet. A bizarre connection - and one I've mentioned before - but when I first heard this record two or three years back it immediately put me in mind of the long, quiet freely improvised section in the middle of "Moonchild" on King Crimson's 'In the Court of the Crimson King'. I wonder if Fripp knew this record or Hall's recordings around that time. There's a quote from 'Surrey on the Fringe on Top' that would suggest the young Fripp had been listening to more than rock.

I added a dozen or so of these Hollies singles to a 60s/70s compilation I have on my iPod a while back. Hearing them at a distance they were evocative of the time. But I've found them mainly a bit winsome and tend to skip past most of them. I've always hated 'He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother' with a passion! Sounded too preachy to a 15 year old at the time and it all just comes across as too melodramatic.

I'm with Matthew and Lon here. I'd probably go a step further and say my interest in the Beatles is almost totally nostalgia. Whilst acknowledging all the discussion about their greatness as popular musicians, influence etc, the biggest buzz I get from listening is how it takes me back. I suspect most people here who are enjoying revisting the Beatles are doing so hand-in-hand with investigating newer musics in their varying guises. No need for the 'I've moved on' one-upmanship. There are other directions beside forwards and backwards and you can do both simultaneously.

Good description, Lon. I think that's my favourite Douglas alongside the very different Charms of the Night Sky band of a few years back.

I've been listening too. I've only heard these poetry and jazz discs in recent years - I'm always struck by how posh the poets sound. There's a Michael Garrick disc I have with similar plummy versifying.

I've always found his music intriguing and frequently very exciting. On the four occasions I've seen him, three have been thrilling concerts (including the quintet earlier this year). I love the way he constantly changes contexts. And I've always been impressed but his down to earth approach in interviews - none of the grand artiste nonsense. There was a marvellous one a few years back after he'd come in for some flack for straying from the 'true path' of the tradition where he had a real go at those critics who imposed their own 'fantasies' on music and then passed them off as critical evaluation. Look forward to hearing this. My one disappointment - I know he had an Indian influenced band operating about ten years back. That never seems to have made it onto disc.

I agree, Cliff. The whole of 'The Western Suite' is marvellous - wonderfully understated guitar that still grabs your attention.

Have now finished this and I fall very much on the positive side of the fence. I'd imagine anyone not intimately involved with 20thC music already will find this an engaging read. I polished it off in less than a week - unusual in even a work of fiction during term time. He very clearly favours those composers who want to connect with an audience over those with their eyes fixed on permanent revolution regardless of that audience. Yet even though he mocks the pomposity of the attitudes and utterances of the latter, he can still acknowledge the significance of their music. It isn't perfect - just like Shipton's jazz book it becomes overwhelmed by the sheer volume of music in recent times and can only flit between things. I recall reading somewhere a criticism that it seems more like a set of magazine articles put together - there's some substance in that but I think that again it results from trying to cover such a vast area (there's an interesting bit at the end where he mentions the number of working composers in various countries and you get a real sense of how impossible it is go get a head round everything). His approach reminds me of the way we teach history - you cannot even begin to cover a topic like 'The First World War' in continuous depth, so you give an overview and then zero in on one or two case studies to provide some depth. At times this gets a bit strange - a great chunk of the Britten chapter is given over to a lengthy description of Peter Grimes. There's a definite geographical bias - I'd argue it over-represents America in the picture. In fact that suited me as it discussed the context of music I know but had read little about. But it leads to a distortion of interpretation. Not surprising, though, given that its prime audience, I suspect, was intended to be American. I've also read some criticism of his use of ornate, flowery analogies to explain the music. I think such critics are missing a vital point. Most people reading the book (like me) will be unlikely to have much if any understanding of musical notation. Such analogies - however woolly - do convey some idea of the music in a way that precise musicological terms cannot. Overall a good read and a book that will sit on my shelves for reference in the future.

I love Jim Hall's playing but I also found those Telarcs hard work. I can never work out if it was the production or the 'academic' sounding compositions that kept me at a distance.

When did the party line change on Andorrans*? It's August 1939 all over again. [*Term not used in a geographically specific sense]

John Taylor, Keith Tippett, Nikki Iles, Enrico Pieranunzi, Stefano Bollani spring to mind. Plus the usual suspects.

There are a batch of major label American jazz recordings from the mid-late 90s that rarely see the light of day - Hargrove, Redman, Lovano etc. At the time I was returning to jazz after a long classical stint. It was before internet days so choice was limited to what turned up in the (provincial) British shops. Needless to say, Verve, Columbia etc releases were always well placed. Apart from those I'm not unhappy with any areas - I might tire of things for a while but I tend to return sooner rather than later.

They've clearly led very sheltered lives if they think the examples on that list are the 'weirdest ever recorded.'

I have these on separate LP from the 70s. They were my first exposure to Nielsen and drew me in.

That would be a bit radical.

Should be no need for any fuss if its read as I think Ross intended it. A general account of a complex topic for a general readership. It reminds me of Alyn Shipton's 'A New History of Jazz'. Both attempt to tell a broad tale and impose order on a highly complex topic via their own outlook. I seem to recall Shipton being less impressive in the latter third of the book as he tried to race through as many strands of recent jazz history as possible without having the historical distance to really draw it together. I'll be intrigue to see if Ross has the same problem.