JSngry

What I like a lot about Brubeck's playing is his at times totally wack take on a standard's harmonies. What keeps me from going any further with most of it is the metronomic aspect of his polyrhythms (i.e. - the "obviousness" of the math of what he's doing), and the "cheeriness" of all of it, which is admittedly a subjective evaluation on my part. I know that he's a thoughtful, sensitive man with a genuine love of/for life, but there's a lack of emotional variety in his playing (as I feel it, anyway) that just doesn't give me too much more to think about other than that he's a thoughtful, sensitive man with a genuine love of/for life. Which is a good thing, certainly, but still... Interestingly, though, when I first started getting into hardcore Latin pianists like the Palmieris & Papo Lucca, my more hardore jazz friends couldn't deal with it. At all. "Sounds like Brubeck", was the sniffed standard dismissal, and it is one that is, objectively, not totally ill-considered. Why I love them and can't but respect him, I don't know, but Brubeck's playing still strikes me as uni-layered, both technically and emotionally. What you hear is exactly what you're getting, and all you're ever gonna get. I guess it come down to the point that what that "that" is is not something that connects too deeply with me personally. But still, the cat's take on harmony can be very cool in and of itself, so that's the connection for me where it exists, and it is not without its pleasures and rewards.

Seriously, I've gone from loving him to hating him to finally accepting that he is what he is, which is sincere and aware, and letting that suffice. Some of his playing I've actually come back to liking, but I can't say that he's somebody who resonates with me at any level other than appreciation. But apreciation is a good thing in and of itself, so let me pat myself on the back.

Are you saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions?

I suspect that the drug that harmed Stitt's music the most was alcohol.

I didn't know that Harvard had a dictionary of underwear! And as for Webster's, you gotta look at Ben, not Miriam.

I know a fair number of lay film buffs who can comprehend the basics of lighting, editing, etc. Same with photography afficiandos who appreciate things like framing. shutter speeds, etc. Many amateur appreciators of classical music understand the rudiments of form, tempo, etc. And so forth. so why do so many jazz fans recoil, almost in horror, whenever faced with things like ii-V changes, turnarounds, specific instrumental techniques, etc? It's not like these are exotic things that you have to join a secret cult to comprehend. It's fundamental music-making, nothing more. Part of the music is indeed soiritual/emotiional, but just as much of it is technical. The instruments don't play themselves, and a lack of skill will be readily apparent to almost everybody. So why the resistance to learning what goes into the making of that which one loves? Appreciation should be enhanced by such knowledge, not diminished! I wonder how much of this aversion to the nuts-and-bolts is rooted, even subliminally, in the romantic notions that many fans have about the music's ethnic/cultural roots. I mean, the image of the passionate, oppressed, free-spirited rebel who spews forth intuitive brilliance certainly holds more novelty and sociological appeal to many than does that of the passionate, oppressed, disciplined craftsman who spends years of hard work dedicated to learning how to play an instrument well enough to present considered expression. Just a thought...

Vere's Valdo?

Well, she HAS done a few big band albums, but the time for effective nudidity has probably long passed...

We all lived in a canna porkinbeans.

A bigass bowl of this damn near destroyed me one time...

Late to the party, so to speak, sorry, still catching up, but here's a combo happybirthdaygetwellstayhealthy wish for you and yours all.

Take away the musical analyses from Porter's book and you're still left with a superb work. The "I couldn't get anything out of it because it was too technical" line I've heard some people use with this book is bogus. If in-depth research is not what you're looking for in a Trane bio, say so, no biggie. I've got a few Greatest Hits albums myownself, so I can relate to the concept. But don't blame Porter for doing and presenting first-class work.

Understanding that such teerms are inevitably relative and subjective, I'll also have to disagree that Marvin's voice was "light". "Transparent", maybe (at least to my way of thinking). But that's what gave him that soaring quality when he went there with it, as well what allowed him to do those massive layered (blocked & contrapunctal) vocal things. A more "concentrated" voice would've clogged up the sonic space and it would have sounded clumsy, at best.

http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17905 Well, I guess, that's what I get for reading the board from the top down...

Yep.

Aric's, It's threads like this that earn you slackage for the really ignunt shit you sometimes proffer.

I'll see that and raise it two "Ma Belle Amie"s. Tee Set repreSENTin', y'all!

Don't know that Marvin will prove to be easily shaken off said trouserleg any time soon, if indeed ever. The deeper you get w/him...

Ditto on dis-difficulty for "Alone Again", although it took years (as well as versions by Gene Ammons & Dewey Redman) to be able to hear it as a surprisingly interesting song instead of a shitaphonically sappy piece of pussypop that Giloburp Eau de Sullovump's original recording had led me to believe. Between the other two choices, let them fight it out amongst themselves, and let's not stop the fight until they both kill each other.

Dude, you're really on a Marvin kick these days, eh? Can't say that I blame you, either.

Depends on how psychedelically gone one is at thet time.

Yeah, that's a nice one. By this time (early 70s), the "prissiness" had mostly evolved into an almost soft-glo psychedelic quality, thanks in large part to, as JK mentioned above, Connie Kay's evolution from "just" a drummer into a color machine. Good stuff, and it makes for a fine (and interesting) companion to the earlier Blues At Carnegie Hall.

Bought this last weekend, and, yeah, very good stuff.

Or that Green Acres was rural surrealism.