fasstrack

He made a guitar with a tailfin, like a Chevy. There's picture on the web if you google it-----yes, I'm that bored............

Not sure. But he lives where I am, W. Palm Beach, now. Showster guitars, they were called. Never heard of them before.

I just met a guy who used to make guitars in Jersey. I don't know how good they were, but no one could doubt his name: Rich Excellente..........

except: these pickups are named after CC. Always have been or were they not? . I dunno. Anyway I always liked single-coil pickups. I have one now. Maybe b/c after I ODed on rock I got that sound in my ear by listening to Charlie from age 17.

Wow. I'm not sure what to think. On one hand, it's great that Christian is being remembered all these years later. On the other, marketing the 'Charlie Christian sound' is sort of lame----though it is the American Way.........

Very good points. It seems like a lot of this stuff is sort of undefiniable, anyway---you sort of kill it by defining it. But it's human to want to compartmentalize, especially to identify something 'new' with sometyhing 'old'---otherwise it's too scary. I avoided the examples myself, b/c I was afraid it would turn into a 'my hero's great, yours sucks' pissing contest. I just think there is a lot of misconception of originality, period. I remember what I loved about Jimmy Raney, and I'm proud that he instilled in me, by conversation and, better yet, example that he wanted to be good more than anything. 'Quality can be honed', I believe were his exact words. There are people that are just lame, and a 6 is not a 10. If someone is good, even if they don't knock you out you have to give at least grudging respect. In Jimmy's case, I believed he was secure enough in his voice and relative originality not to worry about it. Probably he knew people would hear it in his playing, a 'forced' quality, if he approached it that way (or maybe he didn't care what people thought). That can really kill the flow, turning potential beuty into a kind of self-conscious (sp?) obsession, and there can be a thin line between a real idea and a contrivance----which is why I think ultimately 'usefulness', and maybe advancing ther common language and goals, is a test.

The way you seperated those lines, if you made them 7 lines each it would be Haiku

Art very often is not a matter of "opposites." To think that it is IMO implies a belief in an almost mathematical-like rigidity of discourse, plus a belief that historical processes are based on underlying and more or less "eternal" principles. They understand this in Eastern cultures better than Western. I don't know about mathematical formulae, not being a mathematician. (Though music is math, the measureable---teachable----part, anyway. The 'magical' part is the most interesting, but can't be measured----which is a good thing, b/c music will keep reinventing itself as long as human curiosity stays at least at current levels). Anyway, all I meant is that nothing seems to have meaning unless by comparison. If you don't like 'opposite', pick something else. I was afraid of getting into this kind of hair-splitting. I admittedly speak sometimes more from emotion than science or provable fact, but all I tried to do was get a discussion going. I'm an emotional guy, that's why I'm a musician, not a physicist. And I repeat, I know what works for me, but I'm not here to ram it down on anyone. Now that I think about it, a lot of times boredom is the mother of creativity as much as neccessity. Another broad statement, I know. I'll think of examples----there are so many----and get back with them.

Schoenberg's music from 1907-13 was as far from being mathematically contrived as could be -- if anything, one could argue that at times it was bit too much an "outpouring from the soul." About S's later twelve-tone works, and there are different periods there too, even the "strictest" of those pieces comes across in a good performance as driven by inner necessity (which was the case), not as a product of calculation. Then, in his final period, there was his String Trio for one -- which was inspired by a near-death experience of S's and sounds as though it had been. I told you I haven't studied his music closely. I can't say anymore until I do. OK, but you have been saying a lot of dismissive stiff about it that is, apart from matters of taste, factually not accurate. Why not hold off on that kind of thing until you do become more familiar with his music? Or if you don't want to do that, just make your points while leaving S. and his music out of it. OK.

I didn't give in to GAS, which is good because I won't be playing for a while! Still...I really liked that guitar. It would have been my great nylon string solution. How are their acoustic steel strings? If I like one I'll try to cut an endorsement deal with them. I already told them I like the Kingpin archtop a lot.

Right. Also, a thing can't exist without its opposite. I would only add: it's what it does to (for) other people. Especially in the social/communucation arts.

Schoenberg's music from 1907-13 was as far from being mathematically contrived as could be -- if anything, one could argue that at times it was bit too much an "outpouring from the soul." About S's later twelve-tone works, and there are different periods there too, even the "strictest" of those pieces comes across in a good performance as driven by inner necessity (which was the case), not as a product of calculation. Then, in his final period, there was his String Trio for one -- which was inspired by a near-death experience of S's and sounds as though it had been. I told you I haven't studied his music closely. I can't say anymore until I do.

Refusing to check out either the new or the old can equally lead to dead ends. It's standing on ceremony and stupid.

The grounded part, yes, but otherwise I disagree: A good deal of Schoenberg, especially circa 1907-13, was and probably will forever be scary-strange (Erwartung, the final movement of String Quartet No. 2, much of Pierrot Lunaire and Five Orchestra Pieces, Book of the Hanging Gardens, Herzgewachse, Four Songs with Orchestra Op. 22, Die Gluckliche Hand). And the scariness and the strangeness are built right into the music; in the words of the late Carl Dahlhaus, these works still retain, a century of so later, an air of "for the first time." Uncle Arnold at that time often was in an out-on-the-edge state of mind. Likewise, any number of Charlie Parker recordings are never going to sound "normal." I also disagree that the upheaval those 1907-10 Schoenberg works induced was essentially an academic affair. It took place back then and there and for a good time afterwards; the academic stuff you're referring to ("high-minded discussions among men with secure teaching gigs") took place much later -- almost entirely after WWII -- and primarily in the U.S. Finally, about your "I wish someone would pick up on this idea of how the things I mentioned originally seem to get conflated/confused. Or maybe it doesn't matter to people............" The problem is, as I think I almost said before, that your initial statement of the idea was so benign in tone that no one could find anything there to disagree with. I repeat, nothing comes out of nothing. Creativity is arranging what's there in new ways. The 'new ways' is what like-minded people respond to, but if the language---the conveyance---isn't at least familiar precious few people will get on board, b/c it has nothing to do with their lives or their art. All I'm saying is that in some cases, and Schoenberg IMO definitely would be one, the something that comes out (and comes out, in the view of many, out of deep inner emotional necessity) is related to what's already there, in language terms, along the lines of extreme novelty and/or upheaval. This certainly plays on "what's already there" (you couldn't have a sense of upheaval, except perhaps in terms of sheer noise, if one didn't feel that prior habits and norms were being [so to speak] "upheaved"), but probably it doesn't play on "what's already there" in ways that you would regard as legitimate. About the "like-minded people respond to" it part, are we going to take a poll? Some did respond to this music with great passion, including (for two) Alban Berg and Anton Webern. Pretty notable company, no? And they did not respond to it because they belonged to of a clan of beard-pulling academics; this music excited them to the soles of their feet. It did so and still does so to me, and I am not alone. Again, are these things to be settled by polls or concert attendence or record sales? What is there about the existence of what may be rightly (in some senses) called a "minority" music that is so wrong? BTW, do you know trumpeter-composer Steve Lampert's work, which could be said to yoke Schoenberg and electric Miles? What I mean by 'like-minded people' is when a movement starts, or even individuals picking up on ideas that excite them or feel right. There are certain artists who have a me-against-the-world attitude and it works for them. It's a loney life, though. Also, if you are a writer (literary or music) you can work in isolation, at least while you're writing. Jazz, and most popular musics are collaborative----again no great insight needed to see that. Also, sometimes the student eclipses the master, as IMO Marsh over Tristano and especially Berg/Schoenberg. I think, especially with Berg his music was more felt. I admit I've listened to more Berg tahn Schoenberg, but maybe that's b/c Schoenberg's music was less appealing to me. It's hard for me to get into music that's mathematically contrived, including even Trane's Giant Steps. I don't enjoy playing it and prefer to listen to other things of his, though it was a hell of an achievement. You can tell he worked on it for a year. This is all personal, and to me it's more exciting to take something there and really find something either new or rearranged. But I never force anything. That sort of can kill art. Stretch, yeah, but don't pull. I realize people get bored, I just personally don't respond to artificial forms. Maybe I should try. I like Miles' statement 'if a note doesn't sound good to me I can't play it'. I really believe in that, hearing being the best way to discovery and everything else. Of course you have to study and have push yourself sometimes. Woody Shaw got a lot out of working with certain intervals and things discovered by 20th century composers. You mentioned Bird coming from left field. In very important ways he did, but he also quoted a lot, which sort of sums up a lot of what I mean. There's something I call 'musical memory'. Bill Evans called a 'universal musical mind'. It's almost like you have the entire history of music in your brain and consiousness, and so many melodies and chord changes in Western music are so similar that when you learn 5 you learn 50, etc. I've taught children and adults successfully drawing this out of them. What a really creative musician does is listen, think, stir the pot, and it comes out them. Life experience doesn't even enter into it often, otherwise there wouldn't be young geniuses who are so influential. This is one reason this level of talent is called a 'gift'. But the most exciting creativity, again, and I won't beat this to death anymore, is when people see something in their lives in the end product, and it's new somehow. Everyone (I mean fans, not Fletcher Henderson and his band) loved and understood Lester Young, yet he was entirely fresh at the time. Smoother rhythm, lighter sound. I just think melody is a life force in music and is a large part of why people listen. No, I never heard Steve Lampert. I like some of Miles electric stuff, though.

This will not advance this discussion light years----but just as a reality check, and comic relief I give you: 'The Enza Rea Test' Enza Rea was the mother of a musician friend of mine. She was a very perceptive person, plainspoken and folksy. She loved music and wrote song lyrics and used to send them to Tony Bennett. (His manager used to send a Christmas card every year, though after a while he admitted he wasn't sure who she was ). But she hated jazz, she said. Why? "It sounds all 'jumble jumble'" was her answer, without fail. We used to sort of laugh, and my friend, her son, used to try to explain and convince her. But I understood her objections, and it is a good reality check when as smart a person as she could make such an observation. I don't know if she speaks for the majority, b/c the sad fact is that we get almost no media exposure, b/c the money people smell no money in jazz, seemingly. So, for years, when I either played something or heard something and wondered after how people might perceive it I would say to myself 'would this pass the enza rea test'?' Barry Harris used to say 'they don't even give people a chance to hate us'. My brother, who I'm visiting now, puts down my playing, saying 'you never play anything anyone understands' (not true at all, I'm pretty understandle, actually), and calling what i play ragtime. Maybe these things are atypical or just plain funny, but maybe they are also revealing of certain things we don't want to face. I wonder.........

Milestones (Jack Chambers)

The grounded part, yes, but otherwise I disagree: A good deal of Schoenberg, especially circa 1907-13, was and probably will forever be scary-strange (Erwartung, the final movement of String Quartet No. 2, much of Pierrot Lunaire and Five Orchestra Pieces, Book of the Hanging Gardens, Herzgewachse, Four Songs with Orchestra Op. 22, Die Gluckliche Hand). And the scariness and the strangeness are built right into the music; in the words of the late Carl Dahlhaus, these works still retain, a century of so later, an air of "for the first time." Uncle Arnold at that time often was in an out-on-the-edge state of mind. Likewise, any number of Charlie Parker recordings are never going to sound "normal." I also disagree that the upheaval those 1907-10 Schoenberg works induced was essentially an academic affair. It took place back then and there and for a good time afterwards; the academic stuff you're referring to ("high-minded discussions among men with secure teaching gigs") took place much later -- almost entirely after WWII -- and primarily in the U.S. Finally, about your "I wish someone would pick up on this idea of how the things I mentioned originally seem to get conflated/confused. Or maybe it doesn't matter to people............" The problem is, as I think I almost said before, that your initial statement of the idea was so benign in tone that no one could find anything there to disagree with. I repeat, nothing comes out of nothing. Creativity is arranging what's there in new ways. The 'new ways' is what like-minded people respond to, but if the language---the conveyance---isn't at least familiar precious few people will get on board, b/c it has nothing to do with their lives or their art. You know more about the specifics of Schoenberg's work than I, so I will yield to your statements. But the more I think about it the more I come down on the side of 'usefulness'. If you're just playing some weird music just b/c, IMO it's sort of a waste b/c it means nothing to anyone else but you. There are many people in many fields who are very accomplished, even brilliant, but their work exists in a vaccuum. I repeat, I personally find this sad. But maybe their chief value is as teachers, and we definitely need teachers. Sorry if this is an uncontroversial or benign statement to you, Larry. It happens to be what I believe, and I don't ask anyone to declare me profound. I think it's a lot easier to get into discussions that lead nowhere about whether guy A is better than guy B, and why. I'm a musician and know how hard it is, how much work is involved in merely being good, let alone 'original'. One time, many years ago Jaki Byard really straightened me out. I was so young and stupid I actually thought I was saying something to this great musician (to this day I've never met anyone heavier in terms of knowledge, scope, or control over his art as an improvisor) that meant something----when all I was doing was what a lot of musicians who should know better, and fans do: shit talking about some musician or other. Jaki looked at me and said 'everyone's a big time critic, but no one....' and he started to say 'plays shit', but was too polite, so he stopped himself. But I got the message, and it took me some years before I realized both the wisdom of his statement and how lucky I was to be exposed as a musician to someone so knowledgeable. So I try to play more now and talk less. Since you're undeniably smart, make a statement yourself to get me thinking. I mean it, I'm not trying to be a smartass. On the contrary, this is exactly why I put this up: I already know what my own opinions are.

I was there. It was muddy. We thought we were saving the world----which, of course, was bullshit. It never made it to any movie, but Hendrix picked out a girl in one of the front rows and said 'hey, sweet thing----a dirty old mann's gonna lick your bicycle seat'. The best bands were Butterfield and Canned Heat, I thought. John Sebastian and Janis Joplin's band were good, too. The funniest thing I remember is something everyone saw: the genius promoter, Michae Lang, with his curly Afro, after almost being trampled to death by kids who broke the flimsy fence down and snuck in saying (I think while supine) 'this is now a free concert'....

pelzer had a lenghty recording career without baker as well (eg he recorded with rene thomas many times between 1952 and 1974, i like his playing on the thomas jazz in paris cd "meeting mr thomas"), but i would agree that he was a bit inconsistent... his gigi gryce tribute album "salute to the band box" with philip catherine is nice.... and, of course, since his day job was owning a pharmacy baker probably would have allowed him to enter the stage from time to time even if he hadn't had any talent (same for pelzer's daughter micheline and her husband michel graillier... but then micheline also recorded with wayne shorter, graillier with steve lacy, all three with barney wilen - a pharmacy in the Belgian countryside doesn't explain all this) two samples from pelzer's own albums, not trying to prove he was the greatest of them all, just trying to prove that he was much more than a guy with a pharmacy (minority, but not from the gryce tribute album; iirc this was recorded when pelzer was on an italian tour with baker but baker went to prison for over a year after just a few days so pelzer was stranded in italy, but i might misremember this, this album was recently reissued by rearward) (the pelzer families' 1974 fusion band open sky unit... i am really no expert on this but i haven't heard a more soul based fusion band from europe..., steve houben, another family member who would work with baker later on is the second alto player, cd reissue from whatmusic) Rene Thomas: There's a real talent. He and that tenor player from Liege. What's his name? I'm senile...........

Ed Bickert trio: Lollipops and Roses. Beautiful.

*Schoenberg was still grounded in the traditional stuff. He made a conscious choice to change. That music, and its basis in rearranging the harmonic scenery, etc, FWIW did cause an upheaval, but mostly in universities where high-minded discussions among men with secure teaching gigs took place. It definitely passes the 'utility' test: Some composers, like Milton Babbit, still live by serialism. Some, like David Del Tredici (and increasingly many others) returned to tonality, and took knocks on their noggins from the eggheads. We all have to follow our respective stars. Personally, I think Schoenberg was very courageous, and his accomplishment as a musician is undeniable. In terms of beauty, I personally find much of his music (I like Moses and Aron, the Bach arrangements and a few early pieces best) about as listenable as that of another guru: Lennie Tristano----which is to say not very. Give me Berg or Warne Marsh. But I tip my cap deeply to Mr. Schoenberg (and Tristano) for being musical thinkers and sticking to their guns. I wish someone would pick up on this idea of how the things I mentioned originally seem to get conflated/confused. Or maybe it doesn't matter to people............ * I am not, nor would profess to be an authority on classical harmony, especially serial music. I am a jazz guitarist and composer very satisfied (for now) to work within, while finding the wrinkles in the materials available in Western music. Take my comments on Schoenberg/serialism with as much salt as is needed.

Wow.

Oh, Jeez. Well, these cats had great lives, at least, and knew it. How many people can say that?

That guy Jacques Pelzer plays better than I expected. I heard him before---on alto---and from how he sounded figured he got on records b/c he was a connection/host for Chet. Bass player was a little weak, I thought. Plodding, not a strong sound, and sounded intimidated. This is good, but the stuff from Tokyo in the late 80s, also with Danko, I think is much better. Not a fan of Chet's singing, but he's such a great musician he makes me like it, especially when I'm waiting for him to change 'voices' to trumpet.

Bump. Gonna give this one last shot, then accept your lack of interest..................